Behe has been rebutted in detail. The fact that you may have been holding your fingers in your ears and singing, "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you," at the time doesn't change that.
That's patently absurd. The Darwinists evade the key issues and answer the most problematic issues (such as irreducible complexity) with sleight of hand. It is the Darwinists who interject the "anything is possible in time" gambit when faced with the statistically improbable. A good example was one such rebuttal which can best be characterized as saying that irreducible complexity can be overcome because it must have been, given that we "know" that species have evolved. these sorts of juvelnile circular arguments are the best that the Darwinists, like a religious cult whose founder has been proven a fraud, can muster as they scramble for higher ground against the rising tide of real science.
The fact is that Darwinism as such was actually killed in the crib with the advent of genetic science. the problem is that adherence to Dawinian macroevolution had become so dogmatic that "scientists" were willing to go to absurd extremes to conceal the deficiencies of Darwin's quaint little theory. It was a nice piece of cognition for the 19th century, but would scarcely have survived this long had the objectivity of the Age of Enlightenment not given way to cheerleading and pop science masquerading as the real deal.