I have not had time to follow the details of the exchange between @colewd and the others, but it seems that we have drifted from the OP, which is really about how LoING interacts with ID arguments. I was hoping that someone could straighten me out on any of my misunderstandings of what ID people were trying to argue, but I guess everyone is equally confused, sometimes in different ways.
My meta-conclusion from this right now is that even if there is a way to interpret ID statements in the OP charitably enough such that they do not blatantly contradict each other, the ID argumentative framework has a clear lack of rigor and clarity. It does not help when its leading proponents are making basic mathematical mistakes that confuse the main argument (even if they insist that it doesn’t undermine it.) I have often talked with people working in sub-fields of physics or science outside of mine, and while I have not always understood everything they said, usually I would ask a few basic probing questions and things would never blatantly contradict each other like the above.
A great example even in this forum is Halting Oracles And Law of information Non Growth - #22 by swamidass, where I tried to poke holes in your argument for halting oracles but you were able to immediately give very clear answers to all of my concerns. There was no fudging or evasiveness. To me it’s a great example of what distinguishes theories with strong foundations and those which seem to be built on a mound of sand.