I still fail to see any real difference. "It's accepted so it's true." = "It must have been true or it wouldn't have been accepted." One's just wordier. The actual reasoning process is identical.
Well, let me try one more rewording. See if this makes the distinction clear.
"It's accepted by scientists so its likely true" is an argument from authority.
"It's likely true because evidence from the real world has convinced scientists to accept it" is an argument from evidence.
And a theory which appears to render evolution impossible will get a fair shake?
They don't hand out Nobels to people who just maintain the status quo or only add decimal points to known concepts. Any challenges to evolution based upon sound evidence will receive a fair hearing, as well as generate quite a bit of excitement. With new avenues to explore come new opportunities.
I know that creationists by and large do not believe this, but the important battlefield for creationists is public school science classrooms, and no science will enter that venue that hasn't first been accepted by scientists. That's a reality, independent of whether challenges to evolution really get a fair hearing. That's why creationists have to present their findings to science, whether they feel they're treated fairly or not, and that's why I think Gitt should take his ideas to the halls of science.
I see no reason why Gitt's information should be equated with Shannon's in any way. Why should we try to make Shannon information pie using Gitt information as an ingredient? They're apples & oranges to each other.
My question was not about Shannon's theory. My question was about meaningful information. As you no longer appear to concede that meaningful information renders evolution impossible, I would seem mandatory that you disagree with Gitt's assessment. If you find fit to state your grounds for this disagreement, perhaps we'll have some lively discussion after all.
While I don't accept Gitt's ideas, I don't think I could critique them very well because they do not make sense to me. Perhaps if someone could explain how mutations require intelligence I could comment on that.
Shannon's subject was actually fidelity. That he chose the term "information" for that which is transmitted is unfortunate. That his theory of fidelity has come to be called "information theory" is even worse, and is the source of much confusion.
Well, whether you like the term or not, that's the term we have.
Alternatively, one might question Dr. Gitt's choice of the terms. Perhaps he should repackage & use "communication theory", at least in English. He could still include his definition of information, as that which is communicated.
"Communication theory" would be an even worse term for Gitt information, because communications is the primary practical application for information theory. Shannon's original paper was called A Mathematical Theory of Communication