Joined: Mar. 2008
The problem is one of equivocation.
First you abstract biochemistry as "information."
(Isn't that reductionism? I get so confused.)
Then you reason backward, assigning limits to chemistry based on the formal properties of "information."
(Isn't that some form of circular reasoning? I get so confused.)
It's a bit like asserting that people have two eyes showing in profile because Picasso painted people.
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.