" That the Evolutionists will continue to sell discredited theories (the primordial soup)"
The origins of life are not part of the ToE.
"and outright frauds (the peppered-moth photos, Haekel's long-ago debunked drawings, Piltdown Man, etc.)"
The moth pictures were accurate (one picture had two moths glued to a tree to show the difference in coloration; the rest of the pictures were from the field and showed moths singly on tree trunks), Haeckel's drawings haven't been taught for decades, and Piltdown Man is the about the only real hoax in paleontology.
"That evolution has no viable theory of abiogenesis..."
Nor does germ theory. So what?
"Hayek neglects to mention that within that system are millions of micro-systems, each of which does have one or more intellegent designers controling it and responding to events: CEOs, accountants, inventors, coders, assembly-line workers, project managers, etc."
And there is no possible way for any one person to know the whole system, or even a fraction of it. The system itself is undirected, though the individual units are.
" Prove that it did. Don't demand that I take the "scientific" theory of evolution on faith."
Science doesn't deal in *proof*; proof is for math and whiskey.
" The day that the evo-inquisition pitched a hissy fit and ruined Richard Sternberg's career for his daring to allow a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer supporting ID to appear in the pages of the Smithsonian, never mind that it passed all the standard hurdles for publication, they forever surrendered their scientific "high ground" and put themselves in the position of ardent religionists defending a dogma."
Horse manure.
http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2005/12/sternberg-saga-continues.html
"And that's why I don't bother to debate this issue the way I used to; it became obvious long ago that I was not engaged in a scientific discussion..."
Yes, I agree. :)
(before you say it I already know I cut your statement off)
The origins of life are not part of the ToE. Then your side is lying to children in school by pretending that it is and pretending further that you have a valid theory of abiogenesis, the "primordial soup" nonsense. Your side is also being awfully persnickidy about ID, given that you're admitting that you have no alternative to explain away the need for intellegent design for the first cells to form, let alone to explain the evolutionary leaps (i.e. the Cambrian explosion) since then.
If the Evos were honest and simply broadcast to everyone, "Sorry, but at the present time we have no valid theory of abiogenesis," the issue of teaching ID in school wouldn't even be on the table.