Vidqun, I apologize. I should not have attributed your sources. Still, I think my larger objections stand. You are invoking the PTB to claim that what he's saying is accepted by the scientific community at large, and this doesn't seem true at all. Specifically, you said, "They were actually formulated by the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig)," and I haven't seen any evidence of this, or of your newer claim that his writings were published "under the auspices" of the PTB. If he publishes papers containing "standard" ideas of information, and also writes books and articles using "non-standard" definitions and ideas, he doesn't get to co-opt his [former] position within PTB to give legitimacy to his non-scientific ideas, and neither do you.
Here is my point: Gitt uses made-up definitions for information, and then doesn't apply his new definition consistently.
In the video you linked, he claims "Ten Laws of Information," listing "Laws" which don't support his/your point regarding DNA--even when he had made up the definitions! For example:
6. all codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
This is actually more of an honest definition of information but then, under this "law," DNA wouldn't apply as information. You have tried to assert that the "sender" in DNA is God, which I've pointed out is assuming your conclusion, but in addition this law requires intelligence on the part of the recipient. The mRNA, DNA, and cell are not intelligent recipients.
7. the determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence [bold mine]
Same problem. DNA and cells are not intelligent, so DNA does not count as information under his "laws."
The creationist's answer to this is, as you have done, to sometimes apply it and sometimes not; to sometimes say an intelligent sender is good enough without an intelligent recipient, and hope nobody notices that your claim is that all of these laws must be obeyed for it to count as information.
After listing his ten inviolable laws of information, Gitt lists the conclusions which must be drawn from them.
C1. since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a sender.
He hopes his audience will miss the fact that the DNA code violates his laws, since there is no intelligent recipient. He posts charts indicating that proteins and RNA do things like "Reading & Understanding," but in order for his idea of information to hold, this must be used in a literal sense. He wants to switch back and forth between literal and figurative uses of phrases as it suits him.