Joshua Swamidass is Confused about Information and Intelligent Design

-
The following takes place on Peaceful Science. Joshua Swamidass is the responding quote:

His main point is that the claim that “information” increases is true only if the technical definition of information in information in information theory is used. That’s a fair point.

That is it. And ID uses the technical definition.

No, Joshua. ID does not use the technical, ie Shannon's, definition. If you read what IDists, like Stephen C. Meyer, have to say then Shannon only provided a way to measure the (possible) information carrying capacity of any sequence of nucleotides (for example).

With respect to biology Intelligent Design uses the not-so-knightly Francis Crick's definition:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

In “Signature in the Cell” Meyer defines “information” basically as it is found in standard and accepted dictionaries:

the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

I doubt that Joshua has actually read anything about ID from the IDists. Now that I am reading "Darwin Devolves" I get the impression that he just skimmed through it at best.

Joshua also needs to read Dr. Lee Spetner's books to understand why he is wrong about information- "Not By Chance" and "the Evolution Revolution", Josh.