Thank you ThomHImself for the lengthy, grossly WP:AGF-violative, WP:POT rant that gives every appearance of failing to address every one of my points above. Given that, I will repeat them here: 
 #Please demonstrate why Perakh's essay is not a WP:RS on the topic of Marks' work on active information. 
 #The 'Wistar Retrospective' was a DI/ID propaganda stunt in which Marks participated  it was not "fringe", it was outright pseudoscience. This is not in doubt. The only reason it isn't included is because ThomHImself is WP:GAMEing to prevent the DI's words being used toi describe the DI's own actions. This is a grey area of WP:BLP#Reliable_sources, so I have ceased to fight over it. 
 #Your piece is a whitewash as: 
 ##it only includes D&M;'s claims, not the criticism made of them. 
 ##it appears to cherry-pick the most innocuous things that D&M; have to say, and omits the discussion that appears (both to Perakh, and to my admittedly less discerning eyes) to be implying that evolutionary algorithms can't create new information that wasn't "folded into" them as active information. 
 #'Active information' was in inverted commas, not quotation marks. 
 #Both "evolutionary algorithms" & "succeed" were employed in the Perakh in the passage I was summarising: "One of the main themes of this reply is the idea that evolutionary algorithms can succeed (in particular outperforming blind search) only if they are assisted by what the authors call "Active Information." (AI)." ThomHImself appears to object to the fact that I was obeying WP:PSTS by relying on a secondary source for interpretation of the primary source, rather than interpreting it myself (which would have been WP:SYNTH). If ThomHImself disagrees with Perakh's interpretation, he is welcome to have his own published. Until that time, Perakh's is the only reliable secondary source we have. 

 As to your new points, where they have go beyond framing my edits in the worst possible light into substantive issues: 
 #"I agree that the concept of AI as such may be construed as reasonable" is hardly a ringing endorsement of the underlying value of AI. It is equivocal in the extreme. 
 #Your "guilt by association" accusation is DOA, given how deeply entangled he is by his own volition, in ID-derived funding, ID-collaborations, ID-arguments, an ID petition & an ID symposium. Give it a rest.