But Patrick, I don't have to allege that the information is a "message" coming from "somewhere" when -- so to speak -- the "medium is the message."
I will repeat again: I don't have to put God on the stage here in order for the natural world to explain itself. If we would but listen.
Why is this point so elusive, so difficult for you?
The point is "so elusive" because I still don't see any persuasive evidence to support the point, or any evidence at all, other than the biological material which you say is evidence not only of itself, but also of more than itself. I admit the possibility that I may be suffering from what's known around here as OJ juror syndrome (or creationist's block), that is, the psychological refusal to recognize evidence when it's right in front of me. So help me out: show me the evidence.
But enough about your point. Let's return to mine, which (to be fair and balanced) seems elusive for you. I still think that your use of the word "information" is being improperly imbued with enough subtle characteristics to load the dice in favor of a conclusion that something more than chemistry is going on. It is that "something more" for which evidence is lacking. In my always humble opinion.