It seems to me the retreat has been in the other direction, namely in refusing to prove how/whether the measure of predictive error complexity applies to organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws; how this esoteric math, into which you yourself retreat, demolishes the reasonable inference that where there are intelligble phenomena, intelligence may be involved in its construction and maintenance. Is that clear enough, or is that "nonsense," too?
If this is not immediately obvious, you are sufficiently ignorant of the mathematics that I am wasting my time discussing this with you, particularly given your resistance to actually learning mathematics. Come back when you understand the words you are using at a sufficient level that educated humans will have some idea of what you are talking about; there is more to communication than randomly stringing together important sounding words. Just because you cannot understand something does not make it nonsense.
Start with Li and Vitanyi. That book has many of the answers you seek, though I doubt you'll give any consideration to its authority either.