[ArGee]

Bottom line is that absense of evidence of a signal (or of Intelligent Design) can't be construed as evidence of its non-existence. Since there is no way to falsify hypothesis of Intelligent Design, it's not science.

I see your point. However, as I understand it, the genetic code is not very tightly packed. Since you've kindly taken on the role of educator, can you tell me whether that has any impact on your statement?

In addition, I presume that the application of the mathematics of information theory is farely straightforward (if non-trivial). Have the ID supporters who apply IT to the genetic code misapplied this mathematics?

Shalom.

[OBAFGKM]

"However, as I understand it, the genetic code is not very tightly packed. Since you've kindly taken on the role of educator, can you tell me whether that has any impact on your statement?"

(Please, no patronizing on this thread!) It has no impact that I can think of because it offers no way to disprove the present of Intelligent Design. You seem to ask whether an Intelligent Designer is necessary to account for patterns found in the genome, or for that matter, in every non-random pattern we find in nature. I contend that one is not.