Richard Dawkins has added Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell to his list of people he refuses to debate. Prior to denying Dr. Meyers, Dawkins had also declined challenges issued by Dinesh D'Souza, who has debated notables such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michael Shermer. Dawkins also has passed up opportunities to debate Christian Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig, a formidable debater who in the past has debated the best atheism, Islam, and skepticism has to offer.
Dawkins, apparently continuing to hide behind his Stephen Jay Gould inspired article Why I Won't Debate Creationists, continues to dodge his critics and avoid putting his beliefs under the microscope of his numerous detractors. In this article, Dawkins sloppily throws creationists and Intelligent Design advocates (ID) into the same the camp, while they themselves would separate themselves from each other. They clearly have vastly different approaches and both IDers and Creationists know it; and so does Dawkins.
Consider his recent appearance on the Michael Medved show:
"Bruce Chapman: … Dr. Dawkins, this is Bruce Chapman from Discovery Institute calling. [Dawkins, muttering under his breath: “Right.”] I was frustrated with this conversation because most of the time I hear straw man arguments about intelligent design. Your new book apparently doesn’t really deal with intelligent design. But it seems to me, that in your previous book, you said that it’s a question of science, that it is a scientific argument – I congratulate you for that -- But if it is, how about having a debate with Stephen Meyer, who is the author of another new book, Signature in the Cell, which deals with this question, and have this in a respectful, civilized, scholarly fashion where you look at the scientific arguments, pro and con?
Richard Dawkins: Now, when you say that I don’t deal with intelligent design, I do, because I deal with creationism and, of course, intelligent design is simply another name for creationism invented for political reasons.
Chapman: Well, if it’s another name for creationism, why did you distinguish between intelligent design and creationism very early in this program?
Dawkins: I don’t.
Medved: You did, earlier on, when we were talking about the Holocaust denier analogy, you said you applied that analogy to old earth creationists. Intelligent design advocates are not old earth creationists.
Dawkins: Sorry, um, I applied the history-deniers to young earth creationists.
Medved: I’m sorry, young earth creationists, yes, but you know intelligent design advocates are not young earth creationists.
Dawkins: I do, and that was precisely the distinction I was making. That’s why I said that I was not accusing intelligent design people of being history deniers, in that sense.
Medved: But you just said intelligent design is another name for creationism.
Dawkins: It is another name for creationism, but not young earth creationism.
Medved: Bruce Chapman?
Chapman: In that case, you’ve got an argument with your previous caller also, because that would be a theistic evolutionist proposition, which is also, by your definition, if it’s not Darwinian evolution, it’s creationism in some fashion. There isn’t any other kind of evolution, as far as you’re concerned.
Dawkins: Where do you guys think – do you think that God did it?
Chapman: I don’t know, I don’t think that the intelligent design people—
Dawkins: That’s what you say, you always pretend, you always pretend that an alien in outer space or something, but you know very well that what you mean is God.
Chapman: No, I think that was your line in Expelled. But I think that the thing that you really ought to consider, in all seriousness, is that by your own definition there is a scientific argument. Put that scientific argument to the test, not with somebody who’s a straw man that you bring up, but have somebody like Meyer, who has written a very scholarly book, to actually debate this topic with you…
Medved: All right, the proposal’s on the table, response from Professor Dawkins, thank you, Bruce.
Dawkins: I will have a discussion with somebody who has a genuinely different scientific point of view. I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put.The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned."
See the entire article here. You can also read more of Chapman's thoughts on Dawkins latest book, and this exchange, here.
I believe Dr. Stephen Meyer does an excellent job defining exactly what Intelligent Design is:
Of course, many scientists have argued that to infer design gives up on science. They say that inferring design constitutes an argument from scientific ignorance- a "God of the gaps" fallacy. Since science doesn't yet know how biological information could have arisen, design theorists invoke a mysterious notion-intelligent design-to fill a gap in scientific knowledge.
Yet design theorists do not infer design just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems-that is, they posses features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. 
Dawkins is a master at telling "just-so" stories about evolution and explaining science in a literary, non-technical manner. However, when he begins to talk about Intelligent Design, you get the sense that he is making things up as he goes. I would recommend that Professor Dawkins familiarize himself with more works by IDers. Perhaps it would keep him from using old, disproved evidence such as this in the future.
Courage and Godspeed,
1. Stephen Meyer, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Essay: Word Games: DNA, Design, and Intelligence, p. 116, Emphasis mine.