Hi Shazard,
I'm glad you posted a reply.
To answer your question: all three examples you gave are examples of evolution. Some people indeed mix up evolution and evolutionary mechanisms. Strictly spoken, ID'ers are not against evolution, as some posters on this forum seemed to hint at (see previous topics). They are against the theory that evolutionary forces may bring about qualitative changes, i.e. the rise of new species. You're right when asserting that the third case (adding non-existing genetic information to existing one by means of RM and NS) is plain wrong.
However, it would be wrong to conclude that this important form of evolution doesn't exist at all. RM and NS is only one of the many explanations of evolution. For instance, eukaryotes are believed to have resulted from a symbiosis (a non-Darwinian mechanism) between various sorts of bacterias. This involves adding non-existing genetic information and provides new functional traits and, consequently, brings about qualitative change. Another example is exaptation, as put forth by Gould in opposition to adaptation. This means that EXISTENT genetic information is used in different ways according to the context in which it is placed. This also leads to new functional traits. Other non-Darwinian mechanisms are epigentic mechanisms and autopoiesis.
I think that dropping RM & NS in favor of ID isn't the right thing to do, it's maybe the line of least resistance, but it certainly doesn't exclude the existence of natural and more accurate explanations for evolution.
H.