If agendas are the basis for trust, then most of what people say can't be trusted in this debate. Are you going to tell me you don't have an agenda? You believe they are wrong, and I believe they are right about many things, but not all. That's what the debate is about. Who's right and who's wrong.
Good point. However, I wouldn't read a book about genetics written by a white supremist. I would rather read a book about information theory from someone who has no stake in the debate.
Dr. Gitt defines a code system as previously stated in this thread. There are different definitions of information, and its not purposeful to discuss them all here.
I believe that the code system used in DNA, and the information stored in DNA, requires a mental origin. Dr. Gitt has explained this in his book, and I would think that a person who really wants to understand the argument such that he can refute it would read the book, and construct such arguments. Otherwise, uninformed arguments against the other side's position are like blindly firing randomly directed shots in 3-space, and hopping to hit a target.
That's fair enough. However, I believe it to be the case that Dr Gitt forms his own version of Information Theory, throwing Shannon's out the window, whilst seemingly piggy-backing on it. Information Theory is a fairly hefty subject that seems at first glance counter intuitive (maximum information when disturbance is maximum?? Sounds crazy right?). So it seems Gitt modifies the theory to make it more intuitive.
Now, since I've seen Creationists change mathematical/physical theories before (see Thermodynamics) to suit them, I fail to get to excited about reading through pages and pages of what may well end up being pseudo science.
Of course, I might be wrong, maybe Gitt has just proved an intelligent designer. I am most sceptical about this. I might look into it in a bit more detail as time goes on, but I see nothing contradicting my hypothesis. Maybe I'm wrong, but given the track record of these 'proofs that evolution can't work' I'm not worried just yet.
I'm going to bow out at this point until such time that I can either be bothered to read more about Gitt's claims, from both sides...as well as actually sit down and come to a complete understanding of actual Information Theory.