We know from empirical data, the 2nd law of thermo, and pure logic, that random, undirected application of energy cannot produce order, or even an increase in order in existing orderly arrays, or to put it another way, energy cannot produce information. - Pascal, and Bernouli have given us the tools that prove mathematically, that the evil, racist/eugenicist conjectures of Darwin are impossible.
The software, and algorithms used by the SETI project are based upon this undeniable truth. - Don't let these Donkeys try to call themselves "scientists."
Evolution does not hold that random change produces information. Rather, it is random change combined with selection that produces information.
I posted this earlier to someone else, but since you haven't addressed it I'll go into more detail. The universe revealled by the Cosmic Background Radiation (perhaps 300k years after the Big Bang) shows an almost perfectly uniform gas of mostly hydrogen, some helium, and a little lithium. The information content of that universe was extremely low, although its potential energy content was very high.
The universe we see now came out of that one from the simple operation of gravity, nuclear chemistry, and ordinary chemistry--the winding down of the universe by increasing its entropy. There was no violation of the second law, which strictly interpreted says nothing about information.
Gas collapsed to stars and galaxies. Nucleosynthesis happened in stars. Supernovae blew heavy elements out into the interstellar medium. Some of those heavy elements were re-condensed into second and third-generation solar systems like ours.
There's all kinds of information out there now. This has been paid for by the simple winding down of the universe's useable energy content. The earth in particular has been getting a free energy source from the sun's running down.
But do you need some kind of "organizing principle?" Indeed you do! There are at least four: the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity.
If you take the individual pieces of any event, calculate the odds of each piece happening and multiply the odds, you can make anything stastically impossible.
A sane person, observing that something has indeed happened, would question the analysis that "proves" it couldn't have happened.
Your "proofs" are little more than updated versions of Zeno's paradoxes