Of course he isn't 100% sure, a scientific mindset has at its core that nothing can be known for certain, except that oneself exists in some capacity, and all other knowledge is derived from one's experiences, even then, Hume's bundle theory comes in and fucks all that up too, nothing is certain, there is a continuum of confidence one can have in anything. He didn't get Dawkins to admit to anything, He's always been up front about the nature of science, an atheist lacks belief in God, it doesn't mean total confidence in God's non-existence, and not but a very select few atheists would claim that there is nothing that would move them from the position that God does not exist. (((Agnosticism))) isn't a real position, it's just a word for the position the majority of atheists hold that was made up by a lying jew. The hypothesis of Panspermia is not intelligent design, but the idea that the first microorganisms didn't develop from non-living materials on Earth (as is in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis), but instead in another celestial body like a star, and was transported to the pre-life Earth via something like a comet or other heavenly body, then Evolution took over from there. Meaning that even if you accept the idea of Panspermia, which Richard Dawkins was referring to in this interview, you still accept the idea of Evolution by Natural Selection as the Origin of Man. Lastly, Richard Dawkins rejects the concept of Panspermia, and is instead a proponent of Abiogenesis, for him it's just a competing hypothesis with his own.