Here is a place to let your words do your talking for you.
"Functional biological proteins are chemicals, but they cannot be synthesized or modified with purely deterministic chemical processes, and they cannot perform their biologically relevant functions except within a carefully controlled and regulated environment. Information, and an information processing system are required to produce them and coordinate their activities."
That was a good part of the post you quoted from---you should have included it, I think.
Anyway, "you have to have sense to make sense." I could take this a couple ways. For example, I've been following and occassionaly joining in to some debates elsewhere and some of the commenters seem to lack sense which must be why they make no sense. But I sense that what you are driving at is that living matter has sense, an intelligent pattern to it, and that to get such living matter, there must have been Sense involved. Indeed, living organisms so seem to be "organized by purposive, mindlike principles". And the choice of terms used by modern biologists belies their belief in chance. Words such as "program", "information", "instructions", and "messages" do indeed have knowlege and sense inherent in their definitions as no program, instruction, or message can happen without an Intelligence behind them. It seems to me that the more we dig into origins, the closer we come to the concept of Divine Mystery at its roots.
That was a good part of the post you quoted from---you should have included it, I think.
It used to be that someone could argue that "only a senior citizen speed reader" could keep up with me. But I could probably stand to speed up a little and include more text as I did in the Holocaust denier post. It's one thing to say that there's "mounds of evidence" and another to show it.
Words such as "program", "information", "instructions", and "messages" do indeed have knowlege and sense inherent in their definitions...
Note an interesting characteristic about all those words, they can't be weighed or measured physically. I.e., you can take the software that runs a robot which is often the most complex and sophisticated thing about it and either deny its "existence" or argue that science as defined by crude empiricism and crass physicality cannot be used to observe it. E.g., you can take the robot and weigh it, study it, etc., never admitting to the crucial existence of the information that runs it. Yet if you ran a magnet over its method of information storage and weighed it again, it would weigh the same but would no longer function. And so on. Making this analogous to biology one has to assume that biology is like a "super-watch," and that may not be. It is just ironic that Darwinists who demand a physical mechanism for everything and refuse to see the crucial issue of a non-physical program by design (Even as they constantly admit it with their own language anyway.) actually avoid a mechanistic approach when every marginally sophisticated* machine that we currently make relies on a sort of metaphysical programming.
*Compared to biology, our nanotechnology is like a crude parlor trick or some such, it seems to me that there's no metaphor that is really applicable for the depth and breadth of the technology already in use biologically.
Unfortunately, as I noted at Anonymous Opinion information relies on an agreement between the sender and the reciever to acknowledge it as information. I may write more on that later.
Later.
hmmm. I've experienced that recently--sending information and yet the receiver not seeming to acknowledge it as such...
Great analogy about the software in the robot. So true.
...sending information and yet the receiver not seeming to acknowledge it as such...
Then maybe in some minute and finite way you can experience what God has millions of times over, so the receiver is building your character. What a nice receiver to build your character like that, as it is a given that it is better to give than to receive.
That or the receiver is being lazy. But what if they were born with a lazy orientation? Do you discriminate against lazy people? Fortunately for lazy people there is probably a judge in Calfinoria somewhere who will eventually make our discrimninations about laziness for us so as to protect the rights of lazy people. Well, they are too lazy to march for their rights, don't you know.
For the record, I was not referring to you. I read that line in your text and thought how it reflected a debate on another site where any point not convenient to another's argument was completely ignored rather than acknowledged and addressed. That line actually improved the dressing down I gave the guy which even he had to acknowledge was well done...
The fact that you devoted two paragraphs to a casual, throw-away comment I made makes me wonder. Do you have a guilty conscience? And don't talk to me about your feeeeel-ings. Regardless of what you feeeel or don't feel, you've given yourself away. My couch is open for clients; the doctor is in. 
Mynym,
Andy from over on A.O.'s site mentioned that while he is not able to read any of the wonderful books on I.D. or that discuss the obvious problems with Evolution at this particular time, he is interested in good short internet pieces. I suggested the 3 links from your homepage, of course, but if you have any other suggestions, I'd appreciate it. If not, I will have to hunt some down myself. Just thought your greater expertise could be useful here. 
And please don't forget to call Dr. Venger's office for an appointment. There is, I fear, much to discuss...
Access Research Network was the original bulletin board type network where most proponents of ID discussed and formulated their ideas. It's still a good place to begin and they have some papers posted there.
Commenting by HaloScan
