Your readings of the status of Behe's opinions in the eyes of modern science is, well, kind of special. Most biologists consider him pretty close to holding crank status. One of his primary predictions about things that would never show up in refereed science journals had already been published quite a while before his book was. Not a great job of benchchecking. Try Miller's "Finding Darwin's God", for a point by point take down of Behe's special pleadings, and an accounting of the numerous contradictions of his claims that now exist in the refereed journals. None of these arguments really stand up very well upon inspection. Unless you are talking about the basic DNA/RNA machinery, there really isn't any interesting argument from complexity. 5 percent of a human eye's worth of function is plenty valuable to plenty of creatures, and that's all the justification it needs.
I've read Miller's book, and didn't think it refuted Behe. but it's interesting that you mention Miller, since he accepts ID on the cosmological level (the fine-tuning argument) and seems to be close to getting read out of the movement along with Michael Ruse.
It's true that Behe, even within his own department, is thought of as a crank, as are all IDers. But when his book came out, several reputable and well known scientists admitted he was on to something because at the time the literature on prebiotic molecular evolution was pretty scarce. I remember grilling my roommate at the time, a Ukrainian biochemist, and he agreed this was the case, and although I know Moran and others would dispute it, I believe him because, being an atheist and an expert, he had no dog in the fight.
So, I consider Behe's negative criticisms to at least have had demonstrated positive value. Dembski's work also has had value, taken purely as an aspect of probability theory in philosophy.
But, I'll be the first to admit that ID hasn't developed much and that these aren't triumphs to shout home about, given the ambitions of their program.
I just find it completely counter intuitive that buying into ID will lessen someone's scientific aptitude anymore than being a Platonist in mathematics owuld lessen someone's mathematical aptitude.
What hurts scientific aptitude is a lack of imagination and skill when it comes to thinking of and setting up experiments, inumeracy, etc. Right?