What is it about something being either Contingent, Complex or Specified that is nebulous to you?
I guess what you show is indeed an accurate portrayal of the scientific validity of intelligent design.
And I guess this little dart is indicitive of the basis from which you operate concerning the debate over IDT or ET. Mocking my, or anyone's post in this way is not you showing superior argument rather it is you belittling without some sincere rebuttal. Should I respond that this is an accurate portrayal of how closed minded someone can be? I don't begin with that, Quark.
The inconsistent definitions in Dembski's literature and the lack of rational in the default of design. The lack of real world application, and its high potential for false positives make it questionable in use.