I've got to disagree with some points.
Firstly Behe is hardly separate from the DI crowd - he's a DI fellow and it seems that he often follows the party line (even when he ought to know better e.g. endorsing Wells'
Icons of Evolution).
The DI group have a policy of not discussing the age of the Earth. I suspect that this is a political strategy designed to avoid the problems that Hugh Ross (who openly advocates OEC) has with YEC groups. However YECs such as Paul Nelson are in the DI crowd, and it is at least possible that some other important members are secretly YEC (although I don't think that Behe is). I cannot rule out the possibility that the DI group is predominantly YEC but avoids discussion of the issue because it would greatly undermine their claim to be scientific rather than religious in the eyes of the general public.
Behe at least pays lip service to much of common descent, but that is unusual amongst the DI grouping. Dembski famously asserted that "Intelligent Design is no friend of theistic evolution" (from memory - this may not be an exact quote) and Behe did not contradict him. Since then Dembski has suggested views that would come under the heading of Theistic evolution but it is hard to tell if he believes them of if they are simply part of his apologetic strategy. I consider it more likely that he is a Creationist.
My view on the matter is that the ID movement is mainly composed of OECs with YECs as the largest minority grouping. Behe's views most likely come between full-blown OEC and TE, with an element of creation accounting of IC systems. I suspect that Behe's suggestion that all IC systems were included in the genomes of originally created single-celled organisms was more of an off-hand speculation and that Behe beleives in more direct intervention in evolution than that, possibly including more creation events. It is very likely that Behe was an OEC at one time, since he used to argue against whale evolution until the major finds of the '90s made that less tenable.
However it is certain that the ID movement as a whole does NOT argue for a Young Earth, a recent creation or a literal world-wide flood. Some of their major arguments (e.g. the Cambrian explosion) are not very compatible with YEC and some (fine-tuning arguments, "front-loading") tend to suggest TE. Against that must be set Dembski's explicit rejection of TE. TE seems to occupy a marginal position within the ID movement - and it should be noted that strong critics of ID also endorse forms of TE (Miller and Collins to name two, and I doubt that Conway-Morris has much time for ID either).