The Cambrian explosion spans 10s of millions of years, it can be considered an explosion only when compared to other radiation events over geological time spans.
Those who believe it is not IC do so because they don't want to, not because there is a reason to.
Those who have analyzed Behe's science do not believe him because his reasoning is faulty. He repeatedly refuses to examine change in function during the development process. If any of the features of his ICS are the result of a change in function then removal of a feature with the resultant failure of the entire assembly is meaningless. The only way to determine if something is truly IC is to account for those functional changes within the developing assembly and show any gaps those varied function fail to cross. This is not what Behe has done. He simply yanks a subassembly from the structure and then says 'see it doesn't work any longer, therefore it must be IC'.
The same thing would apply to Dembski. His opponents attack his claims because they don't want to accept them--not because they have a strong argument.
In science, which is highly adversarial, scientists go at each others work with a fine toothed blow torch. If the work doesn't hold up it is rejected. This is all that has happened to Dembski, his work failed to pass muster.
Remember, Dembski's work is mostly probability and as such is accessible by anyone with a good working knowledge of math. It is also easy to critique in written form, no unusual lab equipment or field work is necessary. If you don't like the critiques of Dembski's work then do your own analysis of the critiques. If your grasp of statistics is good, I'm sure you could show how the critiques err.
And the discovery of the fossils of complex creatures sans transitionals presents a problem for TOE.
Those who have analyzed Behe's science do not believe him because his reasoning is faulty. He repeatedly refuses to examine change in function during the development process.
The motive means of a bacteria are a pretty basic function. What prior function do you think should be considered as having involved into it?
If your grasp of statistics is good, I'm sure you could show how the critiques err.
The critiques I've seen don't take issue with his math, but with the philosophy -- i.e. how can you know the probability if there may be unknown forces affecting events. That's not a scientific argument. Skeptics should phrase their doubts as "Well, Dembski's right given what is known but since his conclusions are wrong, there must be forces affecting things yet to be discovered."