So just to reproduce your claim here (which is usually best practice to promote dialogue), you predict...
"As we continue to learn more about the genome, the epigenome, and the inner workings of life, we will discover several more semiotic programming languages and information systems."
This is a particularly useful prediction in the clash between ID theory and abiogenesis. Programming and information systems are perfectly compatible with ID theory. On the other hand, the presence of such systems underpinning all life is a serious blow to abiogenesis. Frankly, to the intellectually honest, it should be down right fatal to abiogenesis. Of course, several semiotic biological systems have indeed been discovered already, but this forward going prediction is offered in the spirit of and as a witness to the testable traction that has taken hold in the maturing theory of ID. The fulfillment of this prediction should have profound consequences in determining which paradigm - ID or abiogenesis - is reasonable.
To be clear, this so imprecise as a prediction that is entirely useless scientifically. At the core of it, this is neither a quantitative prediction nor is it objective. There is no way to adjudicate it.
For example, I do not agree at all that there are any "semiotic programming languages" in biological systems. I assume you are referring to the genetic code and genomes, but we use "programming language" as a loose analogy. Not as a claim of what it essentially is. There are some tenuous similarities, that help us teach it, but genetic blueprints are neither exactly blueprints or programs. They are in their own category.
Of course, we can rework our definition of "semiotic programming languages" so that it includes this totally unique category of genetic information. But scientists have a boatload of independent lines of evidence that this arose by evolutionary mechanisms. So this is de facto evidence, as far as scientists are concerned, that evolution can in fact produce "semiotic programming languages" by this new definition.
Of course, the fundamental problem here is that you are trying to use platonic logic to process a metaphorical description of biology. Francis Bacon calls this the "Idol of the theatre", where we mistake the metaphors of things for the things themselve. What we are running up against is the limits of using metaphors to reason scientifically. It just does not work. So we do not use this method of reasoning in rigorous science.
Instead, we use quantitative models. But your prediction is not quantitative. It is subjective. It is not a valid scientific hypothesis. It is neither testable, falsifiable (because of the subjectivity of the definitions).
Moreover, your observation does not discriminate the theory, because it starts from a circular premise too: .that evolution cannot give rise to things that we all agree are in biology from the outset. Things that are somewhat described by the metaphor of "semiotic programming languages" . You think this is impossible. We do not. Either way, we both expect to see more systems like this. Because this observation is a product of both our models.
I'm sorry @deliberateresult. I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive. But this argument is not scientific. It is not even good logic.