What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

I'll take you up on this, as it is a common fallacy that has a direct bearing on the Design interpretation.You say you're taking Physics at University - while most Physics courses don't offer credits in information theory, I suggest you take a credit or two from Engineering or CompSci if your course structure lets you, as it is clearly a subject of great interest to you, and will probably be useful in nearly any career you choose.If you do that, you'll see that the central concepts in "information theory" are essentially taken from another subject, this time one you'll certainly be doing a lot of - statistical mechanics. While the abstraction of "information" is a useful one for the theory, the fact remains that the only expression of information that we know about is in the configuration of physical entities such as particles or fields. Just like the abstract concept of charge in classical electromagnetism is only physically realised as a property of matter particles.In other words, there is nothing mystical about "information". Just because we humans can "generate" information, it doesn't mean that nature cannot. After all, we humans are also good at generating hot air All chemistry, and indeed all physics beyond that of a single featureless particle (and possibly even that), contains "information". What is the difference between the isomers glucose and fructose if not the information encoded in the different arrangements of the same atoms? How is this different from the "information" in DNA?When I use entropic techniques to solve a protein-folding problem, are you suggesting that a protein is more than "special chemistry"?When I use information theory to tease out a pulsar's signal from the noise, are you suggesting that a pulsar is more than "special physics"?"Information" cannot be taken as evidence for Design.