The quote alluded to by Mike indicates the intrinsic connection between information and intelligence. The fact that the latter word initially was used is telling.

When this confrontation occurred it was inevitable a collision and irreconcilable conflict, rather than synergy would occur. Witness what happened at the 1966 Wistar Convention. The rift that began in 1966 has continued to this day. The arguments that brilliant scientists like Shutzenberger and Maury Eden put on the table have been relentlessly and mercilessly pounded on the evolutionary community ever scince.

I would argue an even more modest claim that Nyquist, Shannon, and von Neuman's work laid the foundation of critique of neo-Darwinism and Darwinism. Whether ID is true is somewhat separate, but the science of information, at the very least casts a great shadow on mindless evolution. Epitomizing this ID-free critique of mindless evolution would be the works of Yockey (Oppenheimer's student), Trevors, and Abel.

For what it's worth, I studied the works of Nyquist and Shannon in school as well as Turing and indirectly von Neumann. Your thesis about Nyquist planting a seed for ID is right on, or at the least, one could argue Nyquist made the ground fallow.

PS
I will offer one amusing anecdote when I was studying digital signal processing. The professor was writing down the proof of Nyquist's sampling theorem for almost half an hour. He then turned to the class and said, "what's wrong, you all look lost." The class burst out in laughter after one student boldly replied, "maybe because we are". In the next semester of digital communication, I recall Dr. Chang starting to mention he was about to go over the Nyquist's sampling theorem in relation to a communication channel's capacity (like a telephone wire). As soon as he did, I heard hushed moans from my classmates. The name Nyquist brings a measure of awe, bewilderment, and headaches when mentioned in the community of information engineers….

Evolution must account for the origin and transmission of information. Evolution is not exempt from having to work within the constraints defined by Shannon and Nyquist's equations. Barbara Forest and friends fail to appreciate just how badly evolutionary biologists are preceived by those of us in the information sciences who have slugged through learning the works of Shannon and Nyquist. We almost could care less about the rulings of Dover and Cobb county, or the fact peer-reviewers routinely accept papers the fly in the face of information science. What matter to us is whether the theories are consistent with the body of study which Nyquist and Shannon founded, and imho, evolutionary biology as it stands today is not consistent nor can it ever posssibly be. Never! as in perpetual motion machines don't exist, Never!

This is also a convenient out for ID critics. While IDers might wish to discuss specifics like the origin of information and whether information and a system allowing for its storage and transmission would arise from stochastic chemical reactions, critics can adopt the easy but intellectually stultifying mantra that ID is just religion…