Stupid arguments for and against Intelligent Design

Slumming it at Daily Kos today. Found possibly the most obtuse argument against intelligent design that I've ever read.

If you read creationist literature or get to know their followers, it doesn't take long before one of them will tell you with absolute confidence that 'natural selection/mutation cannot increase genetic information'. It's an intimidating sounding claim. You probably don't know the definition of 'information' and the creationist isn't about to offer one. Most likely because s/he doesn't have the faintest clue what it would be. But it's actually an easy claim to counter because it's like saying you can only reduce the magnitude of a number with arithmetic.

Simply put, if a mutation decreases genetic information, then reversing that mutation, a so-called back mutation, will increase the information by the same amount. This flatly falsifies the claim that all mutations decrease genetic information without anyone having to so much as define what genetic information means. It's true for any metric of genetic information that follows well defined rules. See the trivial proof in comments.

Or, you could say that protein engineers use directed evolution to improve protein function all the time. You know, whichever strikes you as more reliable and easier to explain.

DarkSyde goes on to say:

We deal with informational conceptually and intuitively. It's one of those things we can do without knowing how we do it. Tissues, organs cells, genes, and words make up larger structures the way components make up a circuit. It's not just the presence of the components, but how they're wired together that makes the device operate as it does. Good luck measuring any of those with a metric of any kind.

I'll let the circuit analogy slide, because it has a smidge of validity. However there are thousands of metrics to be measured in cells. There are thousands that have been measured. There is a wealth of knowledge on the subject, that obviously isn't understood by DarkSyde . It doesn't require luck to measure cellular interactions. It requires a background in molecular biology and good lab techniques.

This is the problem with intelligent design becoming a political issue. Now we have the ignorant arguing with the stupid. (Take your pick for who is who.)

The reality of evolution doesn't hinge on political views, thought exercises, or "the elementary topological concept of a set". It hinges on experimental results and the scientific method. I know you're trying to help, but please stop now.