Randy,
I should read Meyer's new book, and I will, but I think if you can answer a few questions for me, we can expediate this debate.
I'll move over to team Paley when Team Paley when the following questions are sufficiently answered:

1. Does Meyer's "new" idea in Signature in the Cell discount the other ID theories? Or, rather, how is it different from the previous wedge document referred to earlier? I'm asking in earnest.
2. How is Meyer's new idea disprovable? Meaning, what evidence would need to be found to falsify Meyer?
3. How is ID repeatable?
4. How is it measurable?
5. How is it natural?
6. Assuming there is a "design code" which accounts for life's origins, how does this falsify evolution through natural selection?

I think if you can answer these we can proceed without going in circles. I've supplied the answers to the above using Margulis and Sagan's Acquiring Genomes Theory.
1. Acquring Genomes recognizes that evolution happens (and happened). What it argues is that that the driving force of evolution is not natural selection (of which I included an explanation earlier), but through symbiotic relationships (of which there are various kinds) within nature. Margulis argues that the genetic information that transfers into new species does so via viruses or bacteria between species that share symbiotic relationships. This doesn't discount natural selection, it merely posits the theory that there is another force within nature that drives evolution, in addition to natural selection.
2. Margulis' theory ("theory" used correctly here) could be falsified if the genome mapping project revealed that species which share symbiotic relationships had DNA strains that were drastically different from species that did not have them. For example, parasitic "nutrient pirates" who benefit from the hard work of other species. The same DNA strains that are found an autotroph (a plant that uses photosynthesis, crucial to the food chain) are NOT found in that plants' epiphytes (a parasitic plant that depends on an autotroph as its host plant). The genome mapping project is lending credence to Margulis's theory.
3. Margulis' theory is repeatable through symbiotic relationships found with nature. I can find one in my backyard. (The ticks on our dog.)
4. Acquiring genomes is measurable by the number of matched genes found within symbiotic relationships.
5. Margulis and Sagan use only natural evidence to support their theory.
6. It doesn't. Biologists debate how evolution happened and happens. Not whether it happened.

As it happens, I'm with Darwin because I believe the preponderance of the empirical evidence supports natural selection over acquiring genomes. But when I introduce evolution in the classroom, I include Sagan and Margulis' theory as a possible cause of evolution. I include it because they played by the rules: They provided natural, testable, repeatable and observable evidence for their theory. I'd really appreciate it if you would provide these answers for me, Randy.

I apologize for being unclear about the importance of a sheepskin. I wrote,"but I digress..." when I pointed out Meyer's philosophy and history of science degree.

Let's agree now: It is the evidence that matters. There is nothing in my six questions above that references anyone's academic credentials. Fair enough?

Your explanation of your belief system is also appreciated. I have resolved myself to believe in the teachings and example of Jesus. We're headed to church so I've got to go, coincidentally. I'm even guessing that Bill Hays himself can agree with me on that. Bill?

Hey, thanks for your suggestions.
My wife had come up with Milli Vanilli, so they might do. She also suggested a song about products or ideas that were actually pretty good, but never took off here: Soccer. The metric system. Beta. (I note a lot of these things came out in the 1970s.) I might do a song about VPs as a whole. I don't think we have heard the last of Sarah Palin.

Michael,
The fact that Darwin was racist (as were most 19th Century European Men) does not falsify the theory of evolution through natural selection. Nor does the fact that people distort ToETN as a reason for racism today.

Thank you for pointing out plates tectonics. I would also add that the convection currents which drive the plates over the asthenosphere are also thought to serve as yet another (though not sole) force driving evolution.

David