William Dembski proposes three possibilities: law, chance or design.
I am having trouble understanding some of what he is saying, so perhaps you could expand his definitions?
1. Natural Law explains regularity: For the filter to eliminate regularity, one must establish that a multiplicity of possibilities is compatible with the given antecedent circumstance (recall that regularity admits only one possible consequence for a given antecedent circumstance); hence to eliminate regularity is to establish a multiplicity of possible consequences.
How do I "establish that a multiplicity of possibilities is compatible with the given antecedent circumstance"?
2. Chance explains real randomness: For law to explain an outcome there must only be a limited number of possible outcomes all predictable from the circumstances. These are events of high probability. If there are many possible different outcomes, then law cannot explain it.
How do I tell if there is "only a limited number of possible outcomes all predictable from the circumstances"?