I'm not arguing with Wheeler. I want the items that support your claims. And simply stating that it "seems" that Wheeler disagrees with my points is not going to cut it - expecially when the quoted statements contain no disagreement.
Looking at the interview this point seems more relevant:
COSMIC SEARCH: A few years ago you asked the question: "Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?"
Have you found an answer?
Wheeler: No, I'm one of the most baffled men in the world on this subject....
quote:
The "creative" element here, thus far, is perhaps better stated as the
"making element" in that the thing itself exists as information, but takes on form as a result of observation. The taking on a definite form was what I was referring to as "creative."
I think it is misleading to use "creative" in a sense that could equally well apply to an assembly-line robot. Which appears to be what you mean. Wheeler's point is that the sort of answers you get when investigating quantum phenomena are essentially a product of how you try to get the answer (which is in turn constrained by the question you are trying to answer). But this aspect is predictable - the delayed choice experiments are repeatable, for instance. Thus the element you call "creative" appears to be "mechanical" - a causal result of the measurement. And of course "creativity" of this sort cannot support ID because it is not intelligent.