  In a number of books and articles including "The Design Inference" and "No
Free Lunch", W. Dembski claims to have established a robust decision process
that can determine when observed structures in the natural world can be
attributed to design. Dembski's decision process first asks whether a structure
as an outcome can be explained by the regularity of natural laws. If not, and
the outcome can be "specified", a randomness test is devised to determine
whether an observed low probability outcome indicates design. It is argued in
this paper that the Dembski test is unworkable and is better formulated in
terms of a Martin Loef universal randomness test. A universal randomness test
will show that most observed outcomes in the natural world are non random; they
are highly ordered. However this does not necessarily demonstrate design, as
the decision is not between chance and design, but between natural laws and
design. The Dembski decision template, which eliminates natural processes in
the first decision step, is flawed, forcing a design outcome when none is
warranted. Dembski also introduces a 4th law of thermodynamics, the law of
conservation of information to argue information cannot emerge from random
processes. However if a more robust measure of information based on algorithmic
entropy is used, the so called 4th law is seen to contain no more than the
second law of thermodynamics.
  In conclusion, despite the good intentions, the approach fails to offer any
new insights into the adequacy of evolutionary theory and should not be
regarded as demonstrable science.
