If this is an accurate assessment, and I have no reason to think otherwise,
does it not totally negate any possibility of Dembski ever demonstrating
his thesis?
As "God," I create a pattern which is intelligible only to my
"intelligence" level (the word "intelligence" is a poor replacement for a
word we humans don't have, and never will have).
No matter how intelligent the human, or human team, looking at it -- it
still appears random. So we (in our hubris) label it as "bad."
Now these "intelligent humans" present to me, an onlooker, a set of "good"
and a set of "bad" patterns. All I can do is admire the "good" ones,
knowing that nobody can, with any assurance whatsoever, tell me the "bad"
ones are truly bad.
Burgy