Randy:
The existence of code in DNA molecules is evidence. Does it support ToE or ID?
David:
This “code” you speak of supports mutation due to adaptation leading speciation. The genome mapping project clearly supports evolution. Indeed, were it found that chimpanzee DNA does not closely resemble that of human DNA, evolution could be falsified.
Randy:
If the code has a design origin, which I believe it does, then it has implications for a design viewpoint for the development of life. The code intuitively has a design origin. Arguments for chance or inevitability are not currently convincing to me.
David:
Your words “believe” and “intuitively” are very revealing. It is difficult to see a complex organism without suspecting it has been “designed,” I know. The “code” you write of reads to me like an example of paredolia. You (and others) make a giant leap from:
Point A) in recognizing the patterns you see to Point B)Asserting an improvable, immeasurable designer.
However, this implies:
1) An improvable designer.
2) Is not how natural selection works.
This is why Darwin’s theory stills exists today. Something needs to drive that adaptation that leads to speciation. Nature does it. If, for example, certain berries grew on one side of an island that required a certain type of beak, then naturally (there’s that word again), birds with that type of beak would thrive in that type of environment, producing more birds with the same “berry-eating beak.” Eventually, these berries give out because of too many birds. Then, say, nuts become more plentiful, so one of the birds with a flatter beak, more adaptable to nut eating, starts to thrive. He makes more birds with flatter nut-eating type beaks. And so on, and so on…
If you wanted to argue that this improvable designer caused evolution to happen, that’s another story, but again, you have to provide the evidence for causation.
Randy:
2.. Intelligent design (ID) is the result of advocacy of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, a political action group whose aim is to implement creationism into school curriculum.
So? The NCSE is a political action group to push "the teaching of evolution in public schools". No different that DICSS. Yet you like one political action group and disparage the other, as if it had bad motives. Why?
David:
The NCSE defends the right of teachers to teach something based in evidence. The Discovery Center has not posited a “theory” to be taught. I teach the aforementioned Margulis’ theory as well, because she provided evidence for it. ID has no credible evidence. I don’t teach that aliens visited Area 51 or that Nostradamus predicted the future in science class either. Were I to teach history, I wouldn’t teach that the federal government had something to do with 9/11 or that the Holocaust never happened, even though there exists a multitude of people who believe these things.
Randy:
3.As of this writing, there has been one peer-reviewed article endorsing intelligent design, titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.” The author, Stephen Myer, was a senior fellow at the intelligent design think-tank Discovery Institute and professor at Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.
Stephen Meyer had a life before the Discovery Institute, including a PhD in the Philosophy of Science from Cambridge. Yet you left that out of his bio. Why? To minimize his ideas, of course.
Ebert did the same thing with Berlinski recently:
Ebert: Here's what I find about Berlinski: 
An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement.
You left out a PhD from Princeton, post doc work in molecular biology at Columbia, and teaching assignments at Stanford and Rutgers and others. Why? Because you want to minimize his ideas.

David:
Did you read my “cut and paste” part? Meyer’s PhD is noted in the Works Cited section. The fact that he has a Philosophy of Science degree (as opposed to actual, evidence-based science) is also very telling. I think writing that he is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute is enough, don’t you? I note neither Eugenie Scott’s nor Michael Shermer’s credentials. I don’t even reference my own academic credentials in my own blog comment.

Randy:
Demonize the Discovery Institute, and everyone attached, and you've destroyed (in the Team Darwin echo chamber) ID.
I need to write a further comment on DI...
Randy
David:
I've no intention to demonize the Discovery Institute. There isn't any evidence for demons. :)