I believe a word of caution is needed here. The word of caution should be to read carefully what one has written. But I probably should have explained things more carefully. My point was to show that randomness is, in fact, taken as an indicator of no information. That the signal of deterministic operation can be extracted out of the noise of randomness.
Science proceeds with that methodology.
I am saying that science says there is no information on the one hand, yet when purposeless evolution comes along then all of a sudden there is information. That is the irony. Sorry you missed it. Again, you seem to be reading things into what I actually wrote. Well, I disagree.