I'm gone for the evening.
Freedom, reason, and evolution!
God Bless America!
We have interpreted the Filter as sometimes recommending that you should accept Regularity or Chance. This is supported, for example, by Dembski’s remark (38) that “if E happens to be an HP [a high probability] event, we stop and attribute E to a regularity.” However, some of the circumlocutions that Dembski uses suggest that he doesn't think you should ever “accept” Regularity or Chance. The most you should do is “not reject” them. Under this alternative interpretation, Dembski is saying that if you fail to reject Regularity, you can believe any of the three hypotheses, or remain agnostic about all three. And if you reject Regularity, but fail to reject Chance, you can believe either Chance or Design, or remain agnostic about them both. Only if you have rejected Regularity and Chance must you accept one of the three, namely Design. Construed in this way, a person who believes that every event is the result of Design has nothing to fear from the Explanatory Filter -- no evidence can ever dislodge that opinion. This may be Dembski's view, but for the sake of charity, we have described the Filter in terms of rejection and acceptance.Dembski has a filter that can only accept design, reject regularity, fail to reject regularity, reject chance, or fail to reject chance. It will never accept regularity, accept chance, or reject design.
OK, it's another thing he's left vague, whether he does or he doesn't. But such ambiguity looks cultivated in a theory that is almost entirely about another theory being false.
Your post – specified complexity or natural occurrence?
Please understand, I do not ask this in malice, but in hope of a mutual understanding.