Indeed. It's really frustrating to see what's going on, because if you just look at Behe's claims, disregarding the conclusions, if those were verified they would be, in my opinion, an aid to teaching evolution. What you would then have is evidence that simple additive genetic mutation is not sufficient to produce the species we have, that these more complex mutations have to be taken into account, and that they're not just theoretical, that they actually happen. That, to me, brings more insight into evolution.
I feel like in a saner world, this would be the conclusion of the irreducible complexity argument, and it would be cool and people who read about it would say "wow, that's pretty cool" and things like evolutionary algorithms would start to include these mutations into their mutation set and all kinds of neat things might happen and we might even call it the "Behe Mutation Set" and now none of that is happening...
You have it backwards. Biologists have *long* known that evolution proceeds not just by "simple additive genetic mutation", and these "more complex mutations" as you call them do "actually happen" and have been observed. This "more insight" has been recognized for many, many decades.
The problem is that *BEHE* is not aware of it, and he builds his "this couldn't have evolved" argument on his misunderstanding -- he thinks that evolution is only an additive process. It isn't. His entire argument crumbles for this reason.