I'm pretty sure Behe is not an intentional charlatan, but his book is riddled with problems, among them, that some of his predictions of scientific events that would never occur because of intractable complexity, had, in fact, already seen publication before his book went to press. Not a great job of bench checking. If you want the whole miserable story, and nearly a page by page takedown of Behe's presumptuousness and carelessness with the facts, find a copy of Miller's "Finding Darwin's God", by a deadly serious, mainstream biologist who cowrites the principle textbook for beginning biology majors, and who is also a deadly serious catholic.
Behe's basic argument, like that of the rest of the stars, of ID can be stated very simply: "If my giant brain can't conceive how something happened, it must be a miracle!".
This is a clinically interesting form of theological conceit, but it is an inherently barren attitude to try to do science with.
Just because someone throws a lot of techie words, math, and great looking engineering diagrams at you, doesn't necessarily mean he's doing science.
At your suggestion, I'll read "Finding Darwin's God". I've read both sides of the argument, and grew-up immersed in Darwinism, as we all did. There's another book I've only perused at the book store, "The Case for a Creator", by Lee Strobel. I remember the interviews with Ph.D. physicists/cosmologists. Like Behe's work, I found it compelling.
There are things, like the Cambrian Explosion, that should make one wonder about ID, completely independent of anything Behe might write. Also, as I recall, either Watson or Crick believed that DNA did not evolve on Earth, but came from elsewhere.
I'm neither a Christian or relgious. Merely curious enough to put aside long-held beliefs and entertain the arguments being made.
I've heard him talk; I would disagree. Shifty eyes, shuffling gait; never look at the audience; etc. Or maybe I read too much into his embarassing presentation.