Semiotic argument for ID

My subtitle indicates what I think of the idea.

I did search here and came up blank.

I'm pretty sure that there are some ID and creationist threads here about "new information". The semi-ID-iotic argument is the same sort of thing, but dressed up in sophistic language.

From what I can conclude, is that if these guys use enough excessive, ill-defined verbiage, they can somehow justify making these supportive assertions. Hoping nobody can figure out what the hell they are saying?

We call that "a snow job". Yes, you are onto them.

Faith writes: Sure, chemical reactions are spontaneous, but we're talking about DNA coding, where a string of chemicals translates into physical features in a living creature -- not salt, not just some other chemical product, but traits in a LIVING CREATURE.

It seems to me that DNA encodes for proteins, not for traits. How traits emerge is a far more complex story, and shouldn't be considered semiosis (IMO).