I have been reading a bit in this book and so far its a pretty depressive experience.
Gitts project seem to be to redefine the extend the concept of "information", and use it to show that God made all life.
Its rather trivial to observe that Gitt never does such a thing. Indeed, so far i have not encountered any formal argument for any significant claim made in the book, this is particulary mind-bogling arrogant considering how important Gitt himself seem to think his contribution to the subject is; he even state his many poorly defined claims as "theorems", and the obvious counter-examples are mentioned in a very vague fashion, but dismissed for no specified reason.
At the hearth of things, Gitt introduce a concept called "information". "information" is defined in such a way it require an intelligent transmitter and resiever, and it require some code to describe it (basically an alphabet). This is no problem; he can define words every way he like, but it got nothing to do with information theory nor the real world.
The problem occur when Gitt says the DNA contain "information". Why? no evidence is given, the argument seem to be entirely semantical: "I have defined some term i call ''information'' that require a God by definition... the DNA can be interpreted to contain some of the properties of the term i have defined... therefore God must have made it!".
As Gitt define "information" it seem to be some holistic property of life. it behave more like a property than something which is quantifiable, which in return make his "information" unmeasureable and undetectable. Why is this science?
The most embarrasing aspect of the book is what appears to be obvious contradictions with Shannon. Check this out:
Theorem 2 : According to Shannon's theory, a disturbed signal generally contains more information than an undisturbed signal, because, in comparison with the undisturbed transmission, it originates from a larger quantity of possible alternatives.
That sound amazingly stupid right? If i disturb a signal (i interpret "disturb" as noise, as usual Gitt is unclear about what he mean), i would expect to loose information. in other words, if i randomly erase parts of a sentence, i loose some meaning.
And ofcourse its not true. Gitt seem to confuse information with entropy, which its not: According to shannon, information is a reduction in our uncertainty about the world. why scrambling a signal will do such a thing seem trivially untrue, but since this is yet another of those "theorems" Gitt never arse himself to proove it, so its hard to offer a formal rebuttal. But ofcourse, if you want to make Shannon look stupid, you might as well misrepresent him.
I think there is a contradiction in Gitts work. He state some very important results, one of them is this:
SC2 : A sequence of symbols does not represent information if it is based on randomness.
well, you just said in "theorem 2" that randomness increase information. so basically he reject shannon completely, but what is left then? In other places he seem to use shannon, at least to give him an air of support; in other words Gitt use at least two mutually incompatible definitions of "information" in his work.
Apparently Gitt has an impressive academic career in this subject, but you couldnt tell from his book. I can make a prediction allready now: Gitt has never tried to get any of his ideas published.
I think any creationist should wonder why he took that choice. my answer is clear, people would just laugh at him and tell him to get back when he actually had something to publish aside wishfull thinking.