Behe's statement of ID is entirely inference, and he quite openly admits it in his book. Yes, he goes into the science of blood clotting and the development of the eye, and shows how incredibly complex they are, irreducibly complex by his estimation. But his argument really does come down to "some things are irreducibly complex (cannot have evolved) and are therefore (by inference) designed".
Defenders of ID want no discussion of the designer, as if it doesn't really matter who or what the designer is or was. I have yet to hear any defender of ID suggest that the designer is of the material world, or even not of the material world. Seems it should be one or the other.
If not of the material world, doesn't ID end up in the same pickle as evolution - more properly abiogenesis - (how does something come from nothing), and if of the material world, why are we not able to study the designer, but only the design?
Bingo! ID doesn't go anywhere as 'science.' It is just trying to sneak religion past the Constitution and into the classroom