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.
What are the requirements for 'knowing better?' Seriously. I'd like to read the book, but if it requires an extensive knowledge of mathematics to understand, I'm out.