Bending over backwards for creationists

When Professor Richard Dawkins revealed that he believed that it is possible that we were created by aliens, he embarrassed atheists across the world. The king fell off his golden throne. Big time. This is what he said:

"It could come about in the following way: it could be that, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet . . . and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." ("Expelled." italics added).

Here, in his own words, is his attempt to regain what dignity he had in the eyes of his followers:

"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario."

However, his backtrack is just as embarrassing. Why did he say that there as a possibility we were created by aliens? It was because he wanted "to give ID its best shot." What? He did it for us! He spoke up on our behalf. This was an act of sudden benevolence from the one who normally holds creationists in contempt. Truly magnanimous. But if it was a creationism scenario he was lovingly imagining for us, why then did he say that it took place "by probably by some kind of Darwinian means..."? Nah. This was just another one of his own evolutionary imaginations.

Twice in his confessional backtrack he said that he bent "over backwards" for us. Sure. Come on professor, fess up. You really blew it. It was your "banana illustration," and I feel your pain.