I'll reply to some of what you wrote:
"i did indeed place ethical values on the proposition in question. i did so very purposely and considered not doing so but decided to do so because i believe the data in question is fundamentally a result of an ethical God....
(snip) ...but i don't understand why you state that We don't have to take a position on truth and falsehood to discuss what Dr. Dick was saying about patterns of information.""
The question Dr. Dick and I am referring to is "what does it ... consist of, or say ...in the first place?"
For another approach in illustrating what I was trying to say, let us depart from the information level we were on... of mere data assembly...
to another two-level information situation - to see the difference between decoding and evaluating.
In our example: when the Rosetta stone enabled the decoding of ancient Eqyptian writing,
the translators did not pause on each symbol and exclaim,"This one is true! That one is false. This one is good. That one is bad!" Rather, they first simply tried to fully understand what the writing actually said. It was up to subsequent scholars to fill in details of our comprehension of that time by a combination of archeological puzzle-piece fitting and thoughtful conversations with well-informed peers.
Only after this work could they even put forward a coherent idea of what was occurring in ancient Egyptian culture as depicted in the writing.
If, at this point, an ethicist wants to opine about the rightness or wrongness of what was occurring, they might do so. But until the information was assembled, what use is evaluating it? Dr. Dick is talking about information assembly at a more basic level -- regarding the equations which govern or describe
the behavior of physical materials and energies, but the illustration can still apply.