To this day, nobody has been able to explain to me why it is innapropriate for experts on all sides of the biological information debate to relegate Shannon information to the more or less trivial end of the information research spectrum. It’s not just Alex Williams that takes this position, Dr. Gitt (a creationist information theorist) basically says the same thing in his book “In the Beginning was Information,” as does Dr. Meyer (an IDer) in his book “Signature in the Cell,” as do a multitude of materialist information theorists.
Here is what Dr. Gitt has to say about Shannon information (quite extensive):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/statistical-view-of-information
Here is what Dr. Meyer’s book has to say regarding the same:
What do you think would have happened to Einstein's theory of special relativity if he treated Newton that way?
The great thinkers whether scientists or philosophers know that they stand on the shoulders of giants. The ones who "tug at superman's cape" are quickly forgotten. It doesn't matter a whit whether they had a good idea. They discredit themselves by their impudence.
Even though I liked William's speculations on metainformation, I cannot endorse his theory because of his impudent remarks about Shannon which showed he clearly doesn't understand the theory. Neither he nor Gitt evidence that they know what information "is."
Rosen, on the other hand, did not give Shannon the credit he should have - but he didn't diss him and he clearly showed that he understands Shannon's theory.