I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you saying that people who are highly educated in this field cannot recognize great complexity when they see it? Or are you waiting for an academic group to define the word complexity?
'Recognizing great complexity when you see it' is not enough to enable testing of the hypothesis. There has to be some objective definition of complexity that is consistent across the hypothesis. So far, Dembski defines it as an improbability of 10-150 in some cases, and as compressibility (which is the opposite of Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity) in other cases.
Whether the definition is from academia or from Dembski is irrelevant, as long as it is well defined and consistent within its application.