I agree about the blather part, but "information" already has a definition. As with creationist definitions of evolution where the only way they can appear to have a leg to stand on is by mis-defining it, the same thing is true of information.
Well, "information" can be defined in many ways. We are trying to get from a
concept which is qualitative and intuitive to
a definition which is qualitative and precise. There are a number of ways that we could do that. There are a number of ways that people
have done that.
Shannon information is one way of measuring information. If I came up with a new way of measuring information and called it "Dr Adequate information", then so long as it had some sort of fit with what we intuitively mean by information, then you couldn't say that I was
wrong by proposing my definition.
So let the creationists bring it on. Let John Smith claim that evolution can't increase "John Smith information". Let's analyze the claim. Let's see whether DNA contains any "John Smith information", and let's ask whether evolutionary processes can increase it.
But I don't see how AIG has got even that far. He doesn't say how we can quantify "AIG information", he just says that "AIG information" should be so defined such that that gene duplication is an increase in "AIG information", and then he triumphantly proclaims that gene duplication is an increase in "AIG information" --- by definition.
If we are going to talk about increases or decreases in information, then we need some way to
measure how much information is in a given genome of an organism. Anyone who tries to come up with an idea of "information" which doesn't do that is blowing smoke.