Mike,
A fallacious argument isn't an untrue argument.
There is no compelling reason to accept it as true, either. That's rather the point of showing a fallacious argument. A fallacious argument is moot.
Nevertheless, I don't see how Behe made any mistakes. It's far more logical to see intelligent design, in intelligent design. It's the simplest explanation according to the priniciple of parsimony.
Behe's mistake was that he made an unwarranted conclusion from an unwarranted assumption. He failed to show IC is unevolvable, which his conclusions require.
Invoking a deity is not the most parsimonious explanation. An explanation that requires the "rules" of chemistry & physics that we observe today would be the most parsimonious.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't