There does seem to be an annoying trend amongst some IDists/Creationists to continually divorce actual real biological function from their preferred abstract 'measures' of information.
They seem only to be ready to consider mutations as beneficial if they satisfy some indefinite criteria for increasing 'information' rather than if they actually confer improved fitness on the organism in which they occur.
In some cases they actually seem to try and define information in such a way as for it to be well nigh impossible for it to increase, which seems to often tie into the creationist fall narrative where there was some original ideal genetic sequences which constitutes the maximally informationally rich genome for a particular organism and any change from that must reduce information, regardless of the biological effect. To see this being attempted with mathematics look at the Durston et al. (2007) where they try to use conservation as a basis for defining 'functional' informational content, which is not an unreasonable approach, but forget to actually look at biological function in any meaningful way.
The definition of information that they use, at least from what I have read, is the same definition given by information science.
Just to give one example to expand slightly upon what Dr. A said, Werner Gitt, who is associated with 'Answers in Genesis', has a definition of information that explicitly requires a mental origin. For a fuller discussion of Gitt's formulation see The value of Gitt information.