Richard Dawkins

During his interview they talk about different important topics that usually caused some controversy within the society, for example the comparison between brains and computers it's pretty cool, I never thought about it before but I kind of agree with it, he said that in computers there's a programmer and in brains the programmer is natural selection, and it's true actually, our bodies reprogram every time we need them to.
Another thing could be that he does believe in determinism, that our bodies just like computers work and program based on existing conditions, and it's kind of like true, bodies don't change based on free will, it will sometimes just happen.
What I didn't understand at all was the device thing, he created it to record animal behavior, and to transfer it directly into the computer instead of doing all the transcription work, and it works with a software based on small different sounds that will be decoded, but how can the device actually recognize the behavior how is it build??
Then he talks about the most misunderstood aspect of human evolution, and he says that it is that people see a living being and they think that they exist from causality, but that's all wrong because they obviously don;t exist due to random circumstances, and there's where the natural selection is the best answer to solve this problem; so I think this non-random force is God, because he is the one who created all the living things on earth, and based on his work, or like the genetic code is where the changes come from.
When they talk about religion, Richard Dawkins says, although he was born in an anglican culture, and he use to believe in it too, he also said that as human beings there is a predisposition to believe or have a religion in the culture, and it is know as a psychological predisposition which is pretty normal, there's a religion found in every culture, even the ancient cultures.
At the end of the interview the talk about Darwin's theory of evolution and how important or remarkable it is, and I do agree on his conclusions, it is a simple explanation for a really complex idea or process, and it is really weird that nobody had come to it before, even thought there where a lot of pretty smart philosophers on ancient years, and we did not accept it at all until the 9th century, funny isn't it?