This is precisely what I was referring to. He slams Dembski rather than refutes his remarks. (and I haven't even read the book, so I'm not here to defend it, just making my point.)
Numerous specific and rigorous objections to Dembski have been posted over and over and over and over on this forum. After all this time, I'm not going to post them YET AGAIN only to have them forgotten the next time the same Dembski references pop up again. Dembski has no credibility and it really chaps my hide to see him polluting a field of mathematics I work in with his utter nonsense, garbage that never fails to get repeated all over the place by people who don't know better.