I also don't see that I'm trying to have anything "both ways"--unless you are very doctrinaire. The information-theoretic insights of the ID crowd and the chaotic-dynamics approach of the punctuated equalibrium evolutionists are complementary. I suspect a fruitful interplay would already have begun if evolutionary biologists were not hamstrung by the absolutist materialists in their ranks, for whom (usually gradualist) Darwinism with ontological randomness (rather than epistemological randomness or law-constrained stochastic processes) and a tautological version of natural selection functions as an atheistic creation myth. S. Kauffman of the Santa Fe institute is looking for an extra law of thermodynamics applicable to open systems. Every model of self-organizing complexity anyone comes up with is obviously designed (models always are) and gives the feeling of being very clever and special (e.g. "most" cellular automata are boring).
Before it's all over, I'm quite certain that there will be extra laws of "fitness" discovered, and maybe even extra fundamental laws like the ones Kauffman is trying out (to the discomfort of the evolution-as-argument-from-no-design atheists), and that the stochastic element will remain (to the discomfort of creationists who would like everything to be purposeful).
Personally, I'm happy with the God who not only plays dice, but rolls them where you can't see them, as one (I forget which) quantum physicist commented in contradiction to Einstein's dictum.