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.
Inconsistant?? How? What example are you giving here? If he is lacking rational you are not convincing me of it just because you say so. That lacks rational in and of itself. What makes you opinion more valid here? Its a valid question to ask yourself as neither you, or Dembski or I are the universal standard.
Rational should be rationale.
In an earlier post to another poster I mentioned the lack of consistency where Dembski uses an improbability of greater than a lower bound of 10-150 as a definition of complexity, and at another time uses high compressibility as a measure of the complex. He also discusses the use of two different methods of calculating probability without making the application clear, then goes on to use only a uniform probability distribution in all of his examples.
I do not claim my opinion to be more valid than yours or Dembski's. What I did claim is that Dembski, the originator of the 'Explanatory Filter', has developed an inconsistent, and so far, unusable test for ID. The inconsistency, and the inability of the filter to produce results, can and has been shown in a number of critiques of his work.