NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

No. Words have different meanings in different contexts. In a precise context like science, you can not just interchange words willy-nilly. No. The reality is matter and energy. The data is the individual measurements. The information is the interpretation that gives the observations "meaning". That meaning depends on whether the observer is a human or an ant, etc. There is no inherent meaning in the matter and energy.

But information IS meaning.

I didn't say it was. I said that the information is created IN the mind FROM the inputs. No, the inputs are not information. Information is what the mind creates from the inputs You have not presented anything to support that claim. That's what I've been saying. But you seem to be saying that the information exists independent of any mind or any medium. How is that possible? You said in this very post that "the information is external, imprinted on matter". If Shakespeare could somehow interpret that information from the matter, why can't somebody else do the same thing?

You're making that assumption but you have not shown that that is true.

That's the normal default assumption. We assume that there are no unicorns until there is evidence that there are unicorns. You have it backwards. The more parsimonious position is that the matter is simply arranged as it is - i.e. there is no voodoo information "engraved" on it.

No.We know that matter exists. We do NOT know that there is any "information" independent of the matter. The unicorn, which does not exist, is the mysterious source of independent information. That's YOUR UNICORN. We have no evidence that that exists.

Not at all. For the purpose of this discussion, what matters is whether or not that independent information exists. You need to provide evidence that it does. That's circular: assuming that information is independent from matter, you conclude that information is independent from matter. There is no evidence, which is my claim. You need to provide evidence that information is independent from matter.

The two are inextricably intertwined. If something exists, it has a source. You have not provided any evidence about how the information got there - i.e. the source. My contention is that it was created in situ, in Shakespeare's brain. Your claim is that it had some abstract existence independent of Shakespeare's brain. You need to support that claim. Again, you have it backwards. We have no evidence that information is independent from matter. We have no evidence of unicorns. Same thing. Seriously, do you think that pile of multiple negatives makes any sense?