I don't claim to be an expert either, but I do have some schooling in areas that touch on this (computer engineering,genetic algorithms).
As for your response to my 6th point (coded info cannot arise from random chance, requires intelligence), I would like to point out that that is exactly the premise behind SETI looking for any sign of intelligent life in the universe, sifting through the background (random) noise looking for any kind of pattern signal, because that would indicate intelligent life. I don't know if I can prove a negative, but (LOL) you can feel free to prove a positive here and give me an example of some kind of self-creating information system that arises out of randomness without an intelligence behind it (although I don't know how you can know there isn't an intelligence behind it). It's actually the same problem we're dealing with here: you see DNA coding and say there's nothing behind it, I say it's evidence of an intelligent designer.
I guess I don't necessarily have a problem that people are not convinced about the ID theory, despite the evidence I see that can support such a theory, but I think it's intellectual laziness (not on your part but the original authors') to call a theory dumb when the basic premise of the theory he believes in is that non-life gave way to life, despite the fact there is no conclusive way to prove that either. I also (not to go too far off) think it is interesting that in two hundred years the great scientists we look back on saw an ordered hand of God in the universe because of the laws of physics they saw, what they observed in the stellar motions, etc, and now somehow to be a credible mainstream scientist today you can't believe that and keep your job.
Finally I did want to mention that to your point on a "even a random array is information", I would have to disagree. I would state that a random array is data, or facts, but to say something is information requires something more than just being data. You cannot get anything more out of the random array, it has no information to convey, there is no message or instructions there.
Now whether or not you can look at something and determine there is information there is another matter, right? Look at all the years of medicine that the human body had so many "vestigial organs", leftovers that were really non-functional, until we discovered the appendix was part of the immune system, etc. we had the data/facts right in front of us, a physical organ, but we were not able to put the organ into the proper context, thus we did not think it had any useful purpose.
I am pretty sure that you are correct about not being able to discern that an apparently randomly generated information system was positively not intelligently designed. That was my original point. Thus, this is not a test of ID, but one of evolution. Granted, a positive result would indicate an intelligent designer, assuming Gitt's assertions are not flawed. But as you pointed out, a negative result merely means that we simply might not be looking at it right. Or, the designer might have used a method that precluded embedding 'fingerprints' in the information.
Anyway, I'd say for a couple of armchair cryptologists we've managed to kick this topic around in decent fashion. You'll have to forgive me, but I think I've hit the limits of what I can add and my momma taught me to shut up when I've run out of things to say ;-)