DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

As noted earlier, that doesn't contain the relevant calculation either.  If this is the centerpiece of the argument for design, then where is it?

ID has been around for a while and is used in many different fields; such as astronomy, forensics, and SETI.

We're not talking about "intelligent design" as a general idea, but rather the concept of complex specified information, the claim that it both has a rigorous definition and that that definition has been successfully applied to determine that DNA has been designed. I'm guessing from the way you're talking around the question instead of answering it that you don't actually know if it has been successfully applied to DNA. That makes you a bit of a liar, doesn't it? Feel free to point to any examples in "astronomy, forensics, and SETI" where the concept and definition of CSI has been applied. You can't because there aren't any.

Here is a brief catalogue of some of the things Dembski has claimed exhibit CSI or “specified complexity”:

(1) 16-digit numbers on VISA cards (Dembski 1999, p. 159),
(2) phone numbers (Dembski 1999, p. 159),
(3) “all the numbers on our bills, credit slips, and purchase orders” (Dembski 1999,p. 160),
(4) the “sequence corresponding to a Shakespearean sonnet” (Dembski 2002,p. xiii),
(5) Arthur Rubinstein’s performance of Liszt’s “Hungarian Rhapsody” (Dembski 2002, p. 95),
(6) “Most human artifacts, from Shakespearean sonnets to Dürer woodcuts to Cray supercomputers” (Dembski 2002, p. 207),
(7) Scrabble pieces spelling words (Dembski 2002, pp. 172–173),
(8) DNA (Dembski 2002, pp. 151),
(9) error-counting function in an evolution simulation (Dembski 2002, p. 217),
(10) a “fitness measure that gauges degree of catalytic function” (Dembski 2002, p. 221),
(11) the “fitness function that prescribes optimal antenna performance” (Dembski 2002, p. 221),
(12) “coordination of local fitness functions” (Dembski 2002, p. 222),
(13) what “anthropic principles” explain in fine-tuning arguments (Dembski 2002, p. 144),
(14) “fine-tuning of cosmological constants” (Dembski 2002, p. xiii),
(15) what David Bohm’s “quantum potentials” extract in the way of “active information” (Dembski 2002, p. 144), and
(16) “the key feature of life that needs to be explained” (Dembski 2002, p. 180).

What is really remarkable about this list is both the breadth of Dembski’s claims and the complete and utter lack of quantitative justification for those claims. We cannot emphasize this point strongly enough: although the decision about whether something possesses CSI appears to require, by Dembski’s own formulation, at the very least a choice of probability space, a probability estimate, a discussion of relevant background knowledge, an independence calculation, a rejection function, and a rejection region, none of these have been provided for any of the items on this list.

Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information” [emphasis mine]