So then if my use language is just an attempt to get people to speak like me so that I can say that it was just a misunderstanding of my own views then I guess I fall out of agreement with you and Razd here
If I am understanding this sentence correctly then I need to clarify. I was not saying that they were trying to adjust language in order to then claim this is all they meant all along and we misunderstood them.
I was suggesting that it (pure speculation) could be used to create definitions such that people would speak in ways that would sound like they agreed with ID claims... as if ID had been supported and accepted.
Scientists discussing ordered v organized systems, particularly with their prescribed info concept, would allow ID to continue their semantic claims by noting how scientists recognize the difference between types of processes based on how "information" is handled.
Of course people can define things any way they want, and if people accept the language so be it. It may not even be intended to help ID. Only the question was raised, and given one of their sources, the stated examples, and the obscure critera involved, I theorized on that possible connection... then jiggled the knife a bit.
holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)