Here is a short clip where Dawkins tells us his feelings about God:
The thing to keep in mind is that Dawkins' brain is hard-wired to equate ID with religion and the designer with God. Thus, in a neurological process that mimicks the withdrawal reflex, Dawkins' brain hears "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written.
As such, his mind requires a level of evidence that would force him to embrace the deity he despises. Yet given his views about the evil essence of religion and the evil nature of the deity, it should be clear that Dawkins needs something that is earth-shattering, sensational, and mind-boggling. The data need to be so powerful and overwhelming that Dawkins, in his mind, must embrace and advocate for Evil. In short, he needs nothing less than total proof of an undeniable miracle. Those who would disagree do not have a good handle on human psychology.
But this need short-circuits the investigative approach, an approach that always begins with clues amid an ambiguoius schema. The investigative approach also requires an open-mind and a willingness to focus on issues regardless of their wider implications. Thus, Richard Dawkins is not qualified to pass judgment on the concept of ID. This is not to say that he is unqualified to respond to those who claim that X could not possibly evolved. He is unqualified to inform us as to whether intelligent design exists amid biotic reality.