LOL! OK, let me know when that happens. I'm no statistician or mathematician, so I can't mount a comprehensive critique of Dembski's Explanatory Filter, but I'll paraphrase a review of one of his books (which I can't find now): Velikovsky started out with an intriguing theory, but after being beaten down by critiques based on the laws of physics, he ended up arguing against gravity itself. Similarly, Dembski's theory started out with possibilities, but after being beaten down by critiques based on generally accepted mathematics & probability theories, Dembski is reduced to arguing against probability himself.
On a less combative note (perhaps), you should find this review of Dembski & Johnson interesting reading.
However, even if he doesn't, the materialists still must prove that natural processes are capable of information creation, which they have not even attempted to do.
Amino acids & nucleic acids spontaneously link & form longer & longer chains on the surfaces of minerals, even up to lengths where functional proteins & RNA start to be found. Genes duplicate & then diverge, one of which sometimes finds a new "job" in the organism. (See Miller, Finding Darwin's God, where he explains comprehensive detail Doolittle's feat of tracing the evolution of the blood clotting cascade.) Plants experience polyploidy (wholesale duplications of their chromosomes) all the time. (IIRC, not so much in animals.) What more does a person need?
So you doubt thermodynamics? Every minor increase in complex structure has happened at the expense of vastly increasing the entropy of the universe. The energy the earth gets from the sun isn't free you know (in the thermodynamics sense).
Perhaps because they assumed that it was sufficiently basic as to be "obvious". The earth is an open system; you can tap any entropy gradient to do "information creation". The local decrease in entropy will ALWAYS be less than the total increase in entropy of the system. Thermodynamics 101.