Whilst I love seeing him debate and reading his books because I find his view points and arguments interesting, he certainly does not deserve a knighthood, and him accepting one in my mind would make him as bad as the people he tries to refute.
Dawkins is a religious atheist, he is so consumed by arguing there is No God he almost seems to bend back on his logic. He believes outright there IS NO GOD. To believe this as passionately and as bluntly as he does is as bad as the people who believe outright there is a God. Dawkins doesn't accept people who believe, he doesn't take them seriously and I think to ignore the possibility that there is, is simply illogical and as bad as what he argues against. So No I don't beleive Dawkins deserves a knighthood anymore than the bishop of Canterbury.
Also, just for the record I'm an 'atheist' in the sense that I believe it is incredibly unlikely there is a God and so don't worship one, I am not however arrogant enough to say "there is NO God" and I am perfectly happy for a person to worship one (I will not treat them as an idiot as a result of it) the only problem I have is when they try to enforce their own morals and beliefs on others. (gay marraige abortion ect ect ect)