The attempt to claim the term ‘revolution’ for the ID gambit needs an expose. Behe’s discussion of biochemical machines is important but it wasn’t a revolution: the issues were clearly raised by Wallace in the nineteenth century and were also clearly discussed by Lovtrup and especially Michael Denton.
The ID group has also failed to consider the implications of ‘design in history’ as discussed in World History and The Eonic Effect, with a far better claim not only to a better use of the term ‘revolution’ but also with a foundation for new view of ‘revolutionary’ social evolution based on the macro effect.
The claims of the ID group are suspect because they assume the issues of design in history made in the Old Testament are valid as faith while ID is claimed as science. This vitiates the whole initiative.