On your other points – yes, I do understand thermodynamic entropy v Shannon entropy v Kolmogorov entropy. Yes, I do understand the concept of spontaneous and non-spontaneous processes (and have used your refrigerator example several times to make the point, btw).
Wrt Dembski, I am a strong supporter of Intelligent Design arguments – I do not however believe that anyone mortal is infallible. IMHO, Dembski made two errors.
One, he introduced a new type of complexity (irreducible) which was not necessary and in doing so gave the anti-ID crowd something else to argue about. He could have used functional complexity to make the same point, for instance.
Two, he misappropriated the word “information”. Information is an action, not a message – the meaning or value of the message has no bearing at all on information theory. Claude Shannon is the “father” of information theory and that is his definition of the term. It makes a huge difference when arguing with bio/chemists who prefer to focus on the DNA (message) when the prime issue is the successful communication, the will to live – or as you prefer to argue it as a package, the non-spontaneous process.