Misc:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dembski.cfm#other
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/conservation_of063671.html
http://designinference.com/documents/04.02.AMNH_debate.htm
http://designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_responsetowiscu.htm
Something to think about:
Dembski, Schneider, Yockey, and even Perakh, are all intelligent people. Some of them might disagree with applying that to each other, but I believe they are all above average. Each of them differ from each other in how they use and apply the word "information". Even five years ago, I could've told you that that it is hard to tell exactly in what sense someone is using that word, especially when talking about things biological.
Could it possibly mean that there is more than one legitimate (and useful!) meaning of the term?
Another thing: In college I was in the top 5 if not the very top of nearly all my classes. My teachers thought I asked insightful questions, thought I had atypically good comprehension in my classes in math, biology, computer science, linguistics, philosophy, logic, etc., the very classes that would have the most bearing on the subject of information in biology. Yet, because I am not smart enough to grasp the simplicity and elegance and brilliance of their exposition, most advocates of unintelligent design, like Perakh, would say that I am one of the sad failures of educational system, whereas my other classmates would be thought of as relative successes for their ability to accept the consensus and repeat the bulleted items of What Is Wrong With ID. If I don't get it, the problem lies entirely with me. (There are a lot of evangelists for various religions who think this way, I imagine.)
Furthermore, it is no use writing for unintelligent, poorly educated dilettantes such as myself, in their opinion, it would seem. I am, after all, part of what is wrong with our society.
Oh well.
