Steve, glad to hear it. For my part, I'm not going to be making sweeping statements but specific ones.Initial overview
Before we really get started, I am granting for the sake of this conversation that there is a difference between ID and creationism.^^ I am in agreement with Behe on the statement that ID will stand or fall based on it's own merits and that ID does not address the existence or non-existence of any deity only a "designer" (of undetermined characteristics) and that ID promotes that Irreducible Complexity (IC) points toward a "designer" at some point and not a natural process. The designer itself -- alien, deity, or extradimensional entity -- is not addressed by ID.
This is not my position on ID or IC, but I think it Behe and other proponents of ID/IC would not object strongly if at all.
If you have any disagreements (small or large) or questions on what I've mentioned above, please comment now.
^^. Personally, I do not think that is true mainly because of the evidence shown at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial covering the book Of Pandas and People
. Note that I am not referring to the legal verdict as evidence, but the evidence presented in the trial, precursor versions of the Pandas book, and the search and replace mistakes showing that Pandas was not a new effort but an updated version of a current Creationist book; http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/images/slide69.jpg
Edit: Added clarification of my position as it differs from Behe's.