I believe your assessment of Behe is correct. He sees nature as something more than random chance and postulates that it appears to have a design to it. I believe he probably leans towards theistic evolution. It doesn't mean he doesn't have something valuable to say if he isn't a YEC any more than it doesn't mean that biologists who are evolutionists can't say meaningful things either. I just wish the same professional courtesy were afforded to YEC scientists.
I believe your assessment of Behe is correct. He sees nature as something more than random chance and postulates that it appears to have a design to it. I believe he probably leans towards theistic evolution. It doesn't mean he doesn't have something valuable to say if he isn't a YEC any more than it doesn't mean that biologists who are evolutionists can't say meaningful things either. I just wish the same professional courtesy were afforded to YEC scientists. If I understand Behe correctly, he acknowledges that evolution occurs. Even macro-evolution. It's just that he also thinks there are some things that couldn't have evolved, so they seem to him to have been designed.
If Behe ever succeeds in persuading the scientific community, what we would then have is (if I may coin a phrase) "enhanced evolution." But the principles that evolution now works with won't change very much. There will still be mutation and natural selection. The fossil record will still form a "tree of life" showing the inter-relatedness of life on earth.
In other words, it won't be a triumph for Genesis-based creationism. All that young earth, global Flood stuff will still be out in the cold, because (as Behe seems to understand) there's just too much evidence against it. I don't understand why so many creationists seem to see Behe as their champion.