OK, so O’Reilley didn’t make the greatest case in the world. But he did pin Dawkins down on the essential question: you can [tell] me how we get here, but you can’t tell me who or what started it all. All Dawkins said was that science would come up with the answer, eventually. Give us scientists more time, after all, we’ve done a good job on everything else.

On one hand, I was impressed that Dawkins admitted that he couldn’t answer “who started this”? He didn’t give us some lame, probabilistic, stuff-can-appear-out-of-nothing nonsense. So Bill basically pinned him down to having to admit that he can’t answer the important questions: who we are, why we care, etc…

I'm not sure how this is an "admission," if that implies some sort of failure; nor is it a case of being "pinned down," as if the information were squeezed reluctantly from Dawkins. Why should it be a surprise to hear a scientist admit that science does not have all the answers? Science has no problem with unknowns. Having unknowns is only a shortcoming if you assume what needs to be proved, namely that the answers are there to be known in Christianity.