It seemed to me to be a sexed-up version of Paley's watchmaker argument, designed to persuade the layman with dense and impressive-sounding terminology.
"seems?" nay, it is. i know not seems.
My favorite moment was when a professor from our school - a man who has spent thirty years researching the bacteria flagellum, according to one of his students - offered to explain the evolution of the flagellum, offsetting stuttering protests from Dembski and wild cheers from the crowd. Dembski was forced to put the slide of the flagellum back up on the wall, and the professor explained to him the four steps of the flagellum evolution, and answered every one of Dembski's objections with a factual statement. Eventually, a red-faced Dembski said in a panicky voice that he wouldn't believe it until he saw "every step", and that the scientist had only added "two more islands between Los Angeles and Tokyo".
This was an extremely revealing exchange for me. It showed that Dembski is employing a simple "God of the gaps" theory; it also showed that Dembski is not a scientist and that he borrows outdated work from other, more scientifically trained individuals; and it showed that normal, evolutionary-based biology is making progress on these difficult questions, without the "revelation" of intelligent design. I was quite proud of our professor.
oh, man, i seriously hope someone had a camera and puts that on youtube. i wish i'd been there for that one!