[AndrewC]

and making the rest of Christianity appear feeble-minded by association.

Well, that statement does not involve rigorous logic. I think it even delves into the region of logical fallacy.

Whatever your feelings are about creation science, information theory, even in a populist and informal form, is not creation science. Seeking an acceptable definition of information and how it is generated seems to be a valuable endeavor. Again, even in a conjectural arena.

[Buck W.]

Are you suggesting that this is an article about information theory? Are you?

[GodGunsGuts]

Dr. Gitt devotes a whole chapter to the terminology used in the natural sciences, the nature of physical laws, classification of the laws of nature into theorems—e.g., Conservation theorems, Equivalence theorems, Directional theorems, Impossibility theorems, Limit theorems—and expands upon Information theorems. I don’t see any obvious holes in his proceedure. For more, you may wish to consult the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/principles-of-laws-of-nature