And Dembski solved that problem incorrectly skewing his result by 100 orders of magnitude (against himself, I add). I reiterate that the fact he's not willing to fix an error (that would even work in his own favor) means he's deliberately dishonest. That book's been in print for over 10 years and no errata has appeared on his website to address this. I still don't know why you care to quote him, he is beyond contempt in my view. - The error is 10^65, reducing the odds against chance: 10^-288 to 10^-223, if I remember the numbers correctly. Either way chance has 'no chance' And it appears that Dembski has a giant ego. My source:-http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/tdr.html