I fail to see why the existence of "algorithm from inception" makes a compelling case for ID, should we turn one up.
In my view, this test for intelligent design would apply to any first cause – abiogenesis, big bang, etc. If we discover algorithm from inception, it would mean that we have discovered initial information content: symbolization, conditionals, recursives and processes in a step-by-step instruction. That is intelligent design per se.
There are two methods of Popperian falsification: by showing that there are no such algorithms or information content or that such algorithms and information content can arise from null.
To get a better idea of the significance of this to biology, I would suggest looking at the work of Yockey who authored “Information Theory and Molecular Biology” and Pattee – The Physics of Symbols and especially Rocha – Syntactic Autonomy.
Wolfram’s approach is to look at the forest, but these scientists are working among the trees.
Indeed, Wolfram has observed what patterns may arise from simple rules. Looking only at definitive areas, the import of his observation to intelligent design is not readily apparent.
Even so, Wolfram has mentioned that his observations are not supportive of natural selection. He said In the end, therefore, what I conclude is that many of the most obvious features of complexity in biological organisms arise in a sense not because of natural selection, but rather in spite of it.
Based on his work but much more so on the ones named above – I assert that, because of the Kolmogorov and Chaitin definitive work, the randomness pillar of evolution is about to be debunked. IMHO, evolutionists ought to be malleable on this point and move away from random mutation as the seed for natural selection – and toward opportunistic self mutation as a more likely seed.
The opportunistic mechanisms being researched are not limited to junk DNA. And for discovering information content, I suggest that Rocha’s work will be the most important to watch.
The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut
Too fast for my blood. Unless you show me the state-space and the selection criteria, you have no notion wheather ANY starting conditions for the universe were likely or unlikely to any degree. It is a question--Chaiken and Kolmogorof notwithstanding--in my opinion, standing outside of space and time, which are what science, at minimum, need by way of evidence to think scientific thoughts about, including the construction of statistical calculations.