I concur this is valid argment for ID. But moving on...

Information content is rarely the product of an individual designer. Take your example... Mr. Gates' Windows... based on the ideas and concepts of countless precursors and competitors, refined and elaborated by generations of bleary eyed computer geeks... sure, it is intelligently designed with inherent purpose and intent but who is the designer if not a "spirit" that was assimilated by many.

While some individuals have reaped much reward and praise, others go unnoticed yet ever onward the beast evolves  and none can claim to be truely it's designer for the reality lives as a manifestation of spirit and we each and everyone have the choice to partake in such spirits.

I took the Bible Quiz and apparently I know the Bible 93%. Not bad I suppose

Not bad indeed.   Though I challenge you to tackle the "improved" Bible quiz I put together this morning.  I hope to put together an even more difficult one in the future.

considering I spend more time reading college textbooks than the Bible these days

As do I, alas.  Rarely during the semester do I have an opportunity to read anything other than what's assigned.

You seriously studied English?  Oh wait... literature and not linguistics.  Although, you basically said that a novel has no  semantics  whatsoever.  Basically, your definition if taken as complete, would imply that Euclid's  Elements  qualifies as a novel.  A novel does NOT JUST consist of a mere sequence of letters combined to form sentence which combine to yield paragraphs.  A novel consists of a certain writing style, where those paragraphs, sentences, and letters have a partially understood meaning to them.

You seriously studied logic?  Oh wait... you can't tell.  Because you always make huge jumps in logic:
- When GGP lists components of a novel, you think he's giving a definition.

It simply works as absurd

And with your word economy, you are hardly one to criticize somebody else's linguistics skills.  Maybe try something like: "It's simply absurd"

Your first message "MIET NDA DTIE ATIW RFO NO NMA." has information content.  Expressly, it has a meaningful structure to it already as your own drawing out of its meaning illustrates.  It doesn't work as unique meaningful structure as it could also mean "TIME AND DIET WAIT FOR NO MAN."  Still, it does have a certain structure to it which limits what it means, just like ordinary words do.  It doesn't qualify as specified (nor do ordinary words, as puns indicate).

- The information in that sentence is corrupt; I couldn't figure the whole thing out.
- The only reason we can figure it out at all is that we have a specific (specified) idea of what words are represented.
- Which means we also recognize that the first rendering is incorrect, and we know how to correct it, as you demonstrated.
- Thus, the fact that we recognize one version as incorrect, and that we know how to correct it, proves that a correct version has been specified by our prior knowledge.  The only reason that we can correct any of those sentences, and the only reason we recognize jumbled words as wholes, is that the correct versions are specified in our minds.
- If the correct version was not somehow specified, we would not be able to correct the sentence.

Computer programs don't actually usually have much information content to them. 

Ok ... Are you serious?  Print out the source code for Windows.

You might want to have a couple ink cartriges ready.

They get written in symbolic mathematics which consists of syntactical structures which work according to a logical structure.

Ah, you mean specified information?

Books do often have a high information content AND ALWAYS contain some ambiguous information.  In other words, books ALWAYS contain nonspecified information.

Another jump in logic: You conflate ambiguous with nonspecified.

Almost all computer programs run on binary logic.  Can you honestly PROVE that living organisms run on binary logic?  Honestly, NO ONE has come close to such.

Ok, seriously ... binary refers to the system of symbols being used, not the logic used to bring these symbols together.  Logic is determined by the programming language.  For example, you could be using HTML logic, CSS logic, Visual Basic logic, C++ logic, Pearle, Q Basic, etc. etc. etc., but all of these run on a binary system.  Living organisms use four bases, not 0s and 1s, so they operate on a quadernary system.  The logic of the software, so to speak, is in the process of being deciphered.

So, you implicitly assert that living organisms think in "yes-or-no" ways and act in "yes-or-no" ways as binary logical systems do (and almost, almost ALL computers do).

Another jump in logic: GGP is saying that just like computers, living organisms operate on software.  But you leap to the conclusion that he's saying that the software of living organisms operates on the same binary system that computer software operates on.  In another logical foul, you're also missing the point: they all run on software (ie, specified information).

Consequently, living organisms would have everything decided as to whether or not something exists, or works or not.  No idecision.  No uncertainty.  They wouldn't say something works and doesn't work.  They wouldn't act in such a way as if something did exist and as if it didn't exist.  They would think that everything they say is either true or false.  Statements like "this statement is false" wouldn't really appear in the thoughts of organisms, since that statement isn't true or false.  Yeah... I don't think so.

Whoooooa ... this is your most severe jump yet.  Just because a computer, for example, operates on a binary system does not mean that the logic consists solely of booleans.  My gosh, man.  And it's not like organisms operate on a binary system anyway, so the entire premise of your argument is off.

... we don't think in binary ways.

Yes we do.  It's just not the only way we think.

Although, I start to doubt that I even could help your deprived minds.

That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.  :-p

Spoonwood, I just don't think you understand what we mean when we say specified.

The simplest way to measure information consists of measuring it in terms of bits.  A bit gets defined as an answer to a yes or no question.  Basically every line of code consits of 1 bit of information.

I'm not going to comment on everything here, but this was the most obviously false thing that you said.  If you're talking about computer software, that last sentence is completely false.  Bits are grouped into units of 8, called bytes.  A single character in a line of code could represent a certain sequence of bits within a byte.  So you could count the number of characters within the line of code and multiply by 8 to get the number of bits.  But one line of code certainly constitutes more than a single bit of information, ha.

He hasn't proven that organisms run on software and neither have you.

Well first of all, the only evolutionist that I know of trying to argue against the presence of information within living organisms is you.

Second, we've already explained how information exists in living organisms.  But having elaborated on binary systems (bits and bytes and everything nice), maybe we can elaborate a little on the quadernary system of biology as well.

The reason we can generate such powerful software from 0/1 switches is that these variables are grouped.  Grouping is the first key to generating information:  We begin with a single on-off (0/1) switch.  Then we put several of these switches into a larger group (byte).  The larger the group, the more possible configurations there are for that group, which means - and herein lies the power of grouping - a much larger number of things that this group can represent.

So, with computer software:  0/1 switches are used to encode the information.  0/1 switches are grouped into bytes (sets of 8).  Bytes, representing single characters, are grouped into words.  Words are grouped into sentences; Sentences to paragraphs, Paragraphs into chapters, and so on.

With biological software: Four bases are used to encode the information (let's call each base place a 0/1/2/3 switch).  0/1/2/3 switches are grouped into ammino acids.  Ammino acids are grouped into protiens.  Protiens are grouped into machines, machines are grouped into systems, systems into organisms, and so on.

Now do you see why we say that living organisms operate on software?  Everything needed to build an organism is encoded using just the four bases.  And just like software, the use of a small number of values (2 for computers; 4 for DNA) to encode large amounts of information is possible because of the grouping of these values.

So, the information content of computer programs qualifies as VERY VERY TINY.

Compared to the information content in a living organism?  Finally, we agree on something. Ha.

It almost seems to me that my response to the rest of your post should be obvious, but I'll probably respond anyway later on.

If the information content found in human language and computer language is always the result of an intelligent designer, then it is only logical to conclude that the information content found in DNA is also the result of an intelligent designer.

Exactly.  And in that same spirit, I would like to make an observation: Even people who reject ID theory search for non-human intelligences, SETI being the most obvious example.  But we have found in biology exactly what SETI was searching for in outer space.

Well I don't think I've ever had such a fruitful discussion with you, Spoonwood.  Ha.

You are right about one thing: There is a difference between the software and the information.  But I'll write more about that later.

Another quick comment:

You've invented a silly bunch of rhetoric here which even a 6-year old would recognize as sophistry.

Haha, aw com'on, Spoonwood.  I'm actually enjoying our conversation.

First off, reread how all logical base systems have a minimum or maximum.  There doesn't exist a maximum or minimum for the chemicals here.

My how the tables have turned.  It appears that you are now the one arguing for booleans and I am the one arguing against them.

Shannon did not say that information must be stored in a binary system, only that a switch with two stable positions (0/1) can store a single bit of information.  It follows, then, that a switch with more than two stable positions can store more bits of information.  But just because a switch can have more than two stable positions does not mean that it cannot store information, sheez.  And since binary switches are used to process information (via some brand of logic), why in the world would you say that quadernary switches cannot be used to process information?

A transistor from the processor in your computer is a binary switch.
A nucleotide from a strand of DNA is a quadernary switch.

[Everything needed to build an organism is encoded using just the four bases.]  No, uracil and RNA.

I should have said: All of the information needed to build an organism is encoded using just the four bases.  And it is.  RNA is more of an information processor than a storage medium.  Since DNA is the storage medium, I assume this is why it uses deoxyribose rather than the less-stable ribose of RNA.  Still, the information needed to build an organism is stored on DNA strands in the quadernary nucleotide switches.

But I think you said we agree that living organisms store information, didn't you?

But my question is: If you agree that living organisms store information, why on earth do you deny that they can process this information?

And if you're not arguing that organisms cannot process information: How can information be processed without software?

In any case, the point of GGP's article is that information exists in living organisms, and since information is invariably the product of intelligence, we should infer intelligence when we observe biological information as well: "If the information content found in human language and computer language is always the result of an intelligent designer, then it is only logical to conclude that the information content found in DNA is also the result of an intelligent designer."

Whew...that improved bible quiz of your was tough! I bombed it...a 36%. I think I'll stick with the amateur quiz and claim my 93% grade Anyone who passes your quiz should be in seminary.

Haha, I guess I've achieved my goal after all!  I doubt I could've even gotten most of the questions if I hadn't myself crafted the quiz.  Seminary, eh?  Well, I did have one taker before you who managed to achieve 86%.  I don't know that she's a seminarian, though.

Again, he NEVER established that information invariably works as the product of "intelligence".

For now, I'll overlook the fact that you're pretending not to know what intelligence is.

Now that I think we both agree that living organisms operate on information and software, I think we have arrived at the crux of the issue: Is functional information invariably the product of intelligence?

If it is not, Spoonwood, then give us examples of nature producing information.

A switch is simply a variable that is limited to certain values.  A transistor is the variable; 0 and 1 are the possible values.  For DNA, the nucleotide is the variable; A, T, G, C are the possible values.

And the reason I assumed you were arguing in favor of booleans is that you apparently think "logical systems" must be reducible to maximums and minimums.  You think this is necessary.  I think it's not, and I've shown you how a quadernary system, with four possible values and no minimum/maximum, can store and process information (in fact, it is more powerful than a binary system because each switch has a larger number of possible stable positions).

I think the real question you should answer now is: In what way does DNA/RNA not function as an information processing system??

[If it is not, Spoonwood, then give us examples of nature producing information.]
1. I don't have a  complete notion of what intelligence is.  Actually, I don't have much of an idea of what "intelligence" is.  Go ask any psychologist, seriously.  They'll more than inform that no agreed upon notion exists.
2. You speak mistakenly about what we agree about.
3. Functional information didn't get defined or even brought up until now.  Until I have a clue as to what you talk about it simply, I simply won't address it.  I say this based on past experience.  Once before, I thought I knew what you meant by 'proposition'.  But, since you considered commands propositions, as no logician or mathematician that I know of does, I realized I didn't have a clue what you meant by proposition... if you assigned an actual meaning to it.  I really suspected you didn't assign a meaning to it and just spoke rhetorically.  The same goes for the term 'logic'.

[A switch is simply a variable that is limited to certain values.  A transistor is the variable; 0 and 1 are the possible values.  For DNA, the nucleotide is the variable; A, T, G, C are the possible values.]
    Even if I grant this, this doesn't imply you have a system of logic.  One simply does NOT have a system of logic, in the formal technical sense of the word, without operators or definitions for connectives like 'and', 'or', 'not', and 'implies' (or a system of logic where one can deduce the 'implies' operator from other simpler operators).  There do exist "gray areas" as to what does qualify and what does not qualify as a logic, like fuzzy logic.  But, if we don't have operators for basic connectives it becomes clear that we don't have a logic in the formal sense... in the same sense that a computer runs on logic.

[And the reason I assumed you were arguing in favor of booleans is that you apparently think "logical systems" must be reducible to maximums and minimums.]
     No, I didn't say reducible.  One can use LOTS of other operators for a logic.  Actually, there exists every reason to think that there exists an actual infinity of possible logical operators (although not necessarily the greatest infinity).  For instance, remember that note where I talked about max(0, a+b-1), min(1, a+b), ab, a+b-ab?  Those are just two pairs of other logical operators for intersection and union.  I said that for the values of the logic there has to exist a "maximum" and a "minimum", or a "least upper bound" or a "greatest lower bound", and there has to exist some way of taking the intersection and union of two given values of a variable.  In set-theoretic terms there has to exist an analogous structure to a "universal set" and an "empty set".  There has to exist a "universal set" which every x qualifies as a subset of, and an "empty set" which qualifies as a subset of every x.  We simply don't have this with G, T, A, and C.

[ I think it's not, and I've shown you how a quadernary system, with four possible values and no minimum/maximum, can store and process information (in fact, it is more powerful than a binary system because each switch has a larger number of possible stable positions).]
    By logic I do NOT just mean store and process information in the sense you've said this.  Look, by logic I more than anything else meaning that given ANY PERMISSIBLE two propositions or valuation of states (like voltage), the logic will supply us with ways of connecting them, and checking inference processes from one proposition to another.  We have to have something analogous to a logic gate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate, or else we don't have a logic.  Like let's say we get an input of 2 volts and 10 volts at one point in the circuit.  We have an 'or' gate at that point.  Well, using maximum for 'or' our gate would take the 10 volts input and produce the output for the circuit.
      First off, you haven't shown that a system of connectives actually exists in nature... or in whatever your "anologue" of my nature is... for G, T, A, and C.  You would need some sort of empirical, or at least some mathematical evidence for a reasonable  claim that some sort of "logical system" actually exists here.  Otherwise, publicly speaking, you  just  guess.  Secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, you simply haven't supplied a system of connectives for G, T, A, and C nor given any clue as to how to do this.  Now, that doesn't mean that one couldn't use G, T, A, and C as a basis for a logic.  One might use certain subsets of their properties for the basis of a certain sort of logic.  But, first one has to show and explain how logical connectives 'and', 'or', and 'not' work (these three work as sufficient for 'implies', since A->B works as equivalent to ~AvB in two-valued logic... or another equivalence exists.)  There does exist the possibly emerging field of "DNA computing".  http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2006/12/dna-logic-gates-designed-and-created.html  But, look... DNA computing doesn't just use G, T, A, and C it uses sequences of G, T, A, and C.  Secondly, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, DNA computing supplies connectives for logical operators.... or at least results of logical operations.  It supplies an analogue of "logic gates."

[I think the real question you should answer now is: In what way does DNA/RNA not function as an information processing system??]
     We don't know of any analogous structure to logic gates in DNA and RNA.  Usually the notion of 'information processing' includes logic gates, or structures analogous to logic gates, even if they work impercetibly.  You've used the term differently, which is fine as it stands.  But, in order to communicate clearly to your interlocutors we have to have some sort of common language where words have at least something close to the same meaning.  We simply don't have this here, as you've indicated that consider a "logic" can qualify as a "logic" without a system of connectives for that logic.  Again, that's fine as it stands.  But, you simply don't end up talking about the same TOPIC as I do.  We end up talking about VERY, VERY different ideas.  And in the technical sense your ideas have no meaning.  Specifially because in the technical sense, 'logic' refers to a system that has connectives (or 'logic gates') of some sort.  It need not come as something like 'maximum' or 'minimum'.  It could consists of a simple table like
T^T=T
T^F=F
F^T=F
F^F=F
But, simply put either the operator has to get specified so that we can or a computer can determine the result of an operation (like using a+b-ab for the union of a and b), or the result of the operations given certain conditions has to get specified (like above).  We have to know how an output happens.  Until you specify this or indicate how we might go about specifying this, you simply don't have a 'logic', in the proper sense.

[It's because others already have; I've been keeping up on this for the most part. I need not give you more opportunities to multiply your words.]
    I don't see where anyone has done so.  You didn't even specify where those "others" has done so with respect to what I said.  At least you could have specified what manonfire said which you thought backed up your claim.  I guess demonstrating your ideas simply doesn't happen for you Cormack.