Look at the part of my post that you quoted. The adjective I used preceding the word "information" is the kind I meant.
In retrospect I see that I didn't quite address his argument. I unfortunately assumed he was putting forth the tired old creationist claim that random events cannot add information. Instead he's merely claiming that mutations of the kind we observe to happen are insufficient to account for the tremendous diversity we now observe. There may even be something to that.
I just read something very interesting over the weekend. As you probably know, as a result of the Human Genome Project, we now think there are some 30K genes in the human genome. I just read that, so far, 20K pseudogenes have been identified. Probably there are many, many more since the software is much better at locating genes. My conclusion is that duplication event are very common. That does not square with the Bergman's claim.
Now, does Bergman anywhere point to specific sequences that are, according to him, very unlikely to have been produced by the kinds of mutations we observe? The genome is available for all. Given his claim that mutations can only "degrade" the genome, he ought to be able to find them easily. Surely it's not too much to ask him to be specific, now is it?
Neither did the Darwinians, although I have seen some evidence they are backing away from their earlier belief in "mutations" as the sole source of genetic change.
They are still, unfortunately, holding fast to their little statues of "St. Natural Selection" ~