Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information (EvoWiki)

Response to Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information on EvoWiki.

Claim
In an interview in 1997, Richard Dawkins was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." Apparently unable to answer, he paused a long time and finally responded by changing the subject.

Source

 * Anon., 1998. Skeptics choke on Frog: was Dawkins caught on the hop? Answers in Genesis
 * Keziah Films, From a Frog to a Prince (video)

EvoWiki's Responses
Any good journalist would be interested in both sides of a controversy. The interviewer most likely did her homework on creationist and evolutionist claims.

That's odd. In a letter published here as well as other places on the internet, Dawkins is quoted as having said "I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.

The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house."

Dawkins continues to say that he retracted his request after the interviewer "pleaded" and "begged" and "assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate."

In the same letter as above, Dawkins said: ''"I have a policy of not granting interviews to creationists or flat earthers. This is not because I cannot answer their arguments, but because I have better things to do with my time and I do not want to give them the oxygen of publicity."

The conclusion is a logical one. Evolutionists claim that numerous examples could be given. Had Dawkins given one, it would have been a blow to creationists. It was a open opportunity to beat the "creationist" interviewers at their own game.

See Mutation.

The Skeptic
In 1998 Barry Williams, editor of the The Skeptic, the national journal of the Australian Skeptics, published a piece in the journal entitled Creationist Deception Exposed wherein he smeared the character of Gillian Brown, who conducted the interview with Dawkins. Williams accused Brown of, among other things, incompetence and 'malicious intent' based on viewing the interview and some of Dawkins' recollections.

In her response to Williams, Gillian Brown took him to task for irresponsible journalism

Brown goes on to detail the many inaccuracies in both Williams' article and Dawkins' recollection of the event. For instance, Dawkins claims that, after the 'information question' aroused his suspicions, he asked them to leave his house. He also claims to have had an 'acrimonious argument' with Brown. Unfortunately for Dawkins, the unedited tape proves that much of his recollection is simply false.

Brown points out in her response that skeptics Glenn Morton and Ed Brayton both actually behaved responsibly by contacting her with their questions and concerns. On the webpage containing Brown's response, she includes a copy of a retraction by Morton, who initially expressed doubts about the interview. After viewing the unedited tape, Morton wrote

Brown also recounts an interesting point about the 'information question':

Yet, according to Dawkins (at the time)

Now if, as Dawkins asserted to Brown, 'questions on the origin of new information [are] invalid', why did he devote an entire chapter to it in his book Unweaving the Rainbow? Why, if it such an invalid issue, is he so proud of that particular chapter?

Finally, and most damning, is that Dawkins' infamous 'pause' is worse than it looks on the video.

That's right. Not only was Dawkins' pause longer than it is presented on the final edit, a full 8 seconds longer, he had also asked for taping to stop for even more time to think! As Brown quips, she was merciful, rather than malicious, to Dawkins

Brown's response to Williams serves nicely as a rebuttal to much of what EvoWiki claims about this incident.