That sounds like the description of a bit sequence of maximum entropy. The sequence which will have the maximum entropy is one in which every sub-sequence is equally probable. Another description of such a sequence is "random noise".
You seem to be saying that the ID folk predict that the information of the genome of a higher organism will be random noise.
This claim can be tested and refuted, or survive falsification attempts, just as the claim that random mutations drive evolution can. To my knowledge neither has been. I would be happy to see references to the contrary: studies which show that genome data is either succeptible or not succeptible to data compression or studies which show that mutations observed in natural population either pass or fail statistical tests for randomness.
Can you show that the prediction that the genome will turn out to consist of random noise actually follows from IDIOT? I can offer the notion that evolution predicts the daytime sky will be blue, and that water will be wet. These are falsifiable, and since they are true, evolution is supported once again.
I could go and look up a gene sequence, and measure the amount of compression it's subject to, in comparison with a random string of nucleotides, but is this really germane when you haven't shown how this prediction follows from the IDIOT?
This brings me to a point I haven't felt like going over, in the rush of posts that always follow hot on the heels of one of these articles whenever they go up on Free Republic:
Why is "complexity" by whatever measurement always taken as evidence of "design"? When we look at things we know are designed -- man-made objects -- we see simplicity, not complexity. Extra parts are seldom found, and if they are found, they are removed in the next redesign.
One argument I've seen is that, if you came upon a sandy beach, and there were rocks on the sand that spelled out, "Hello, how are you?" you'd attribute it to intelligence. You would not presume that it was a random configuration.
That's because there is a high degree of regularity in such a pattern, which means that there's a great deal of compressible information in such an arrangement, or a low Kolomogorov complexity.
According to IDIOTs, such a configuration fails the test of being "designed".
Given this point, I see no particular reason to deal with IDIOT notions of the origin and history of life any further.
Nonetheless, the exchange had been interesting: you, who seem quite devoted to some version of Darwinism, have just proposed an information-theoretic test for design.