Does Dawkins know what he's talking about?

This obviously isn't the first time he's put his foot in his mouth. By DEFINITION evolution cannot have been observed if it wasn't observed while it was happening. That makes utterly no sense. The fact of the matter is that it hasn't been observed and any wishful thinking on his part isn't going to change that. Of course, what he meant is that evidence has been INTERPRETED to imply that it has occurred (ie fossils), but even this isn't true. Since lifeforms suddenty appear in the fossil record with no transitional forms (like the Cambrian explosion), the fossil record actually falsifies evolution. To bad for Dawkins chance at being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Living things evolve slowly based on a variety of circumstances usually climate, major events, and migration.

The stronger or fittest of a species will survive, and in that mode of survival biological things adapt and evolve to meet their needs.

The same is true of humans. Humans have evolved as well. Average height of people in the late 1700s during the American Revolution was a lot shorter than people today. So people have grown taller.

Humans developed into different races. Asians, Africans, Mediterraneans, and the like. All different outward physical features which are conducive to the climates and regions where they settled.

So we don't see evolution occurring quickly. It occurs over multiple generations over a great deal of time.

We don't live long enough to observe the changes.

That's what Dawkins' statement means.

He knows what he's talking about, but that's a needlessly paradoxical way of forming the statement. As if there wasn't already enough confusion on this issue.

Plus he needs to define what he means by "evolution", since the term is used to mean different things. Just adds to the confusion.

Yes and no. Yes, he is correct in saying evolution has been observed and no, he was incorrect in saying that we have not observed it happening. I suspect that he was referring to speciation, which at the time of the interview, he may have been only slightly incorrect.

Yes but what you left out was the second half of that quote...

"it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

Creationists misrepresenting evidence! Oh my, what a first!

Yes, he knows what he's talking about.

And now evolution has been observed in the wild - several times.

Unless you place cameras around the enviornment of a species, wait millions of years, and come back for it, you're not going to actually view evolution happening.

Just like a doctor can observe what killed his patient without being there when he died.

What's so confusing about that?

Science and religion are compatible. Yes Mr Dawkins does know what he is talking about.

Heis correct. You can even watch in action yourself. Just take a college bio class.