Behe’s book was indeed significant, but it was part of the trend, in the wake of the more neutral book by Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, of the ‘intelligent design’ angle, which always smacked of a theological angle.
ID-ists have claimed science, but they have never gone beyond Dembski’s idea of the ‘design inference’ to create real science. An inference is not really that: it is a suggestive deduction, but not proof, among other reasons because it is not a detailed exposition of the facts of the case.
I have always thought ‘design’ as a term was better left as is, with the possibility of natural design being a demonstrable reality, given a constructive argument about a machine self-constructing. The design inference works perfectly well here.
It is possible that a science of evolution in a strict sense is impossible, since the design factor even if natural may have a hidden aspect, and require a different foundation.
More generally I have finally addressed the ‘design’ argument in my recent Enigma of the Axial Age, in its several ‘Conclusions’.
We cannot really mix beliefs about theologies of the Old Testament with ID arguments without getting confused. The book deals with that…