Only that's not my position at all. And I don't think it's Behe's position either. I think that's a misunderstanding.
God doesn't suddenly realize things. He already has all knowledge. He doesn't allow things to change by themselves. As you said, there's no unguided process. So there's no fiddling. It's all a miracle, from the creation of matter onward. The fact that it's so complex only tells us it could not be a process that came about by chance, but that everything is God's design.
So what's the difference between the 'natural' process of evolution - which IDers accept, and an example of creationism? God is involved in each. But a 'creation' event is required because the 'natural' process didn't end up with what God wanted. Is that a position you want to take for an omnipotent deity?
And incidentally, the eye is a very bad example indeed to use as an event requiring creation as oposed to allowing evolution to proceed to the same result. We have numerous examples of how various stages of eyes have evolved. From light sensitive cells through to that which you are using to read this. And every conceivable stage in between.
I don't want to be rude, but all your posts strike me as being written by someone with very little knowledge of evolution. Hence quite a few of them, rather than addressing the points being made, slide into arguments about theism v atheism and abiogenesis.
Let's be clear, I will completely agree with the existence of an omnipotent deity for the sake of this discussion. And abiogenesis is not up for discussion. Whether you are an ID supporter or not, it has already been assumed to have happened.
Your problem is explaining what the difference is between 'natural' processes (which God set up) and supernatural events (where He has to step in to add something that His 'natural' events failed to produce).
I'm keen to know how you tell the difference and what that says about the concept of omnipotence.