This is one of the few times I will admit a clear win for Richard Dawkins. While I appreciate Wendy Wright's stance and can sympathize with many of her concerns, she just didn't know her position well enough (nor Dr. Dawkins') to get into the technicalities of evolution. In my opinion, Dawkins was overall polite and reasonable with his questions and objections. And while Miss Wright was polite, she not only refused to admit that her understanding of evolution was quite limited; but she regularly dodged direct questions.
For example, Miss Wright asked a number of times, "Where's the evidence?" And Dawkins would politely reply with several examples of so-called "transitional fossils." It was obvious that Miss Wright knew little to nothing about these fossils. Instead of admitting her ignorance and agreeing to look into these further, she pridefully dismissed Dawkins' attempt.
This does make me wonder why Dawkins would agree to interview someone like this who has no credentials in science. Wouldn't this had made for a much more useful exchange had he interviewed a creationist or ID proponent with a Ph.D in his or her respective field? Otherwise, what do interviews like these really accomplish except for an excessive number of facepalms to those viewing?
If you're going to discuss the technicalities of evolution with someone, here's a tip: know what you are talking about and/or be willing to look into something for which you are unfamiliar. Otherwise, you are causing more harm than good.