Ed67 writes:
There you go, gang, all you need to admit that, by the english definitions of the terms, the DNA molecule contains COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION.
Speaking of the English language, which is semiotic, and which I'm sure you would say contains or expresses plenty of CSI, it's a good example of a semiotic system which, while a tool for intelligent creatures, wasn't actually intelligently designed. Unlike the intelligently designed Morse code, it's an ever evolving accident of history.
If you disagree, you might tell me who intelligently designed it, and when.
The biosphere is full of communication systems that could be described as semiotic, both intra species and inter species, and involving plants and bacteria as well as animals, but it is extremely rare for the senders and receivers of all these signalling systems to actually intelligently design them from scratch as we do with examples like semaphore and Esperanto.
Careful observation wouldn't lead us to associate complex communication systems with intelligent design. The I.D. inference is a subjective human mistake.
BTW, has it occurred to you that, if you infer intelligent design for the simplest organism, you would need to propose a designer who contains less "CSI" than that organism, otherwise consistency would require that you infer that the designer was itself designed.
Also, if you believe in a designer who designed our world, in arguing against abiogenesis you are implying that the designer designed a sterile physical world, rather than one truly "fine tuned" for life.
Many in the I.D. movement make fine tuning arguments while also making non-fine tuning arguments, without seeming to realise it.
Why?