Genetic information is just nucleotide chains. Split the chains, tie them together in new ways, you've got new information.  If you started with just "ACGT", you could generate any arbitrary string by splitting, duplicating, and recombining elements.

And this is why it is dangerous to argue a topic when you are, at best, half-informed.

No evolutionist, no Darwinist, no neo-Darwinist, would argue that natural selection can add "new information" - it is the process of CHOOSING the information that is available. That was one of the problems with Darwin, was that there was no understanding of "information", which was later explained by genetics. No surprise then that Darwinian evolution (ie natural selection) was largely abandoned (though the concept of evolution embraced) by most scientists at the end of the 19th century in favor of Neo-Lammarckism and other ideas. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work in the early 20th century that created the field of genetics, and it was genetics that primarily explained the way that information is passed on and mutated from one generation to the next. This filled in a big missing gap in evolution theory, and that allowed natural selection to be ressurected.

As for adding new information, it has been well explained by gene duplication, chromosomal alterations (translocation, polyploidy, etc), and endosymbiosis. At the same time, research into evo-devo has shown that small alterations of regulatory genes can result in drastic changes to an organism's body plan, without the need to add "extra" information.

Even this is currently inaccurate, as I understand it. Hasn't it been demonstrated that most gene mutations end up being neutral?

ID proponents miss the most fundamental requirement of a good theory - it must make testable predictions (hypotheses). That is what made Darwin's theory so popular - it gave scientists, both pro-and anti-evolution, plenty of avenues of investigation.

Prediction by naturalistic evolution: There will be transitional fossils
Prediction by ID or creationism: There will not be tranisitional fossils. Or there will, if God wants there to be.
Test shows: Transitional fossils for every major group of organisms

Prediction by naturalistic evolution: If amphibians evolved from fish, there will be transitional fossils found in rocks between 300m-270m years old (based on the ages of the oldest amphibian fossils)
Prediction by ID or creationism: Such fossils, if they exist, could appear whenever and wherever God wanted them to.
Test shows: Transitional fossis found in rocks 280-285myo.

Prediction by naturalistic evolution: If Beetle A and Beetle B appear related, you should find a linking species (Beetle C) in an area between them
Prediction by ID or creationism: Beetle C will be where God puts it - if He even wants it to exist.
Test shows: Beetle C found between A and B.

Prediction by natural selection: Cleaning water supply should result in less harmful cholera bacteria.
Prediction by ID or creationism: Cholera is as virulent as God wishes
Test shows: Cleaning water supply dramatically reduces cholera virulence

Do you see the problem here? There is NO WAY to effectively test any God-centered explanation. It results in no research (as there is none going on in the so-called Discovery Institute). It solves no problems. It proposes no real answers.

Naturalistic evolution, on the other hand, is a robust field of research, constantly being tested and DEBATED by scientists doing real science all over the world, every day. And best of all, the whole thing can be falsified if just ONE creationist could find a 300 million year old bunny fossil.

Now, once you give me a test to falsify God's works, I will be willing to put naturalistic evolution and ID/creationism on equal footing.

The problem being that common sense is often wrong and built on faulty logic. Most of my students believe crocodiles are green, that NY is warmer in the summer because we're closer to the sun, and that ice packs radiate cold energy. The entire reason that Mendel's work is significant (and served to launch the field of genetics) is that it completely defied common sense. Hell, the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Rutherford, and Einstein defied common sense too. 

Or, if he didn't mean that, I'd wager it's true. 

OK.  Sleep for real now. 

Sorry, I jumped into this late (both in terms of the debate and by my clock) and misread your post thinking you were the one asking for proof that there is a naturalistic method for adding new information. In that I apologize for saying you are half-informed; I meant TimmyTom (who could find these answers himself if he truly wanted to know the answers).