Your responding to Notto in all but the last comment, so I will let him respond. I have read most of Behe's book and found it entirely unconvincing, but that may be just me.
As for Denton's new book, I actually was looking for it this weekend at Border's but they don't have it, so I will have to get it from Amazon. But I did read the round table of the ID "luminaries" (including Behe) and they all were fairly distressed at his acceptance of evolution along-side his intelligent design. While they praise the first sections of the book which once again set out the reasons why the universe seems to have been designed for humans in particular, they are disappointed with the second half that discusses the development of man entirely in evolutionary terms, even though Denton ascribes the entire process to God's design. AIG says that, with this latest book, Denton has moved into the Theistic Evolution camp.
By the way, they also point out that Behe is no supporter of Creationism. Here is a quote regarding their disatisfaction with the recent ID movement:
"Where do they really stand? Behe has no problem with the idea of man descending from the slime, via fish—so long as it didn't happen ‘by chance.’
Johnson says it would not matter to him if God used evolution or not. He riles theistic evolutionists, because he exposes their surrender to Darwinian naturalism. Nevertheless, it seems he would be comfortable with a Behe-like ‘evolution by intelligent manipulation.’
Denton, who was an agnostic when he wrote his book, has since moved much closer to theistic evolution, not Genesis creation."
Needless to say, I am very interested in reading Denton's new book, called Nature's Destiny. It does seem to continue his opposition to "Darwinian" evolution as a premise, but seems to have simply narrowed the definition of what is "Darwinian" so that he could accept whole sections of evolutionary principals outright. It seems he just opposes the idea that it is "chance" or "random" and not part of an overall design. After I have read it I will report more.
In the meantime, here is a quote from a review of the book at Amazon:
He does say that "to get from a single cell to Homo Sapiens has taken about 4 billion years". Likewise, he seems to assume that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity of life, albeit directed by information built into the first cell, by whom or what he does not say. However, he offers little to support the notion that the origin of this first cell (and its wondrous DNA) was "in some way programmed into the laws of nature ... it has to be admitted that at present, despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this occurred ..."
What amazes me is that Creationists so often point to books by Behe and Denton and even Johnson to support their position of YEC'ism! They point out their credentials, etc, and then cite with glee all the best quotes attacking their definition of "Darwinian evolution". What they fail to point out is that these same people think young earth creationism is EQUALLY false! They all believe in a very old earth and accept that man evolved from earlier life forms. They just believe that God had to have something to do with it because of evidences of design.
And, hey, I agree with them that God had something to do with it! Obviously!
But I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend.