Yep, Behe's Darwin's Black Box is pretty much an inarguable debunking of the strict Darwinist view, and that everyone doesn't see this is a good example of denial/doublethink in action. IMO. Btw, I've read all the books by the DI crew, including Behe's last. I think there would be less reason for mainstream science's violent denial of Behe/Meyer/Ax/ et al if they had stuck to disproving the 'random' part of RM+NS and kept quiet about 'intelligent design' -- which would have been implied anyway. Meyer's work especially shows how statistically impossible is the neo-Darwinist view. By positing a theory (that's so in line with Christian beliefs) they all have left themselves open to attack, notwithstanding the logical fallacies in those attacks.
Not so sure about this. It happens that a number of individuals at, or associated with, the DI are Christians, but some aren't (there are Jews and agnostics, maybe even some atheists), and in any case they aren't insisting that it's the Christian God that's responsible for the design of life. The official line seems to be that there's some kind of designing consciousness involved in the process of evolution (in the sense of change over time), but they're not insisting it's the Christian God. Some of them believe so, but they don't really beat people over the head with it.
Somewhat paradoxically, it could be the opposition that's doing the insisting: it's in their interests to do so in order to cast the DI in the mould of pseudoscientists. See how they often say things like "intelligent design
creationism"; they can't resist juxtaposing creationism with ID because it invokes the idea of
young-earth creationism, which the DI disagrees with. However, many people reflexively think of young earthers when "creationism" is mentioned.
Whilst the Christians amongst IDers do think that the Designer is the Christian God, by and large they avoid stipulating it as a necessity. Indeed, in a way, I think they're almost materialist in their approach to ID. They go along with many currently held "scientific" (scientismic?) ideas such as the Big Bang, Relativity and so on. For them, I suspect, the universe is dualistic: there's God and He's created a separate material world, which is exactly what it appears to be, and in which the natural laws He's created operate.
People like Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup, who believe that consciousness is fundamental and physicality is a kind of illusion, have gone beyond this. There is no such thing as physicality; that's merely what we perceive, or put another way, an interpretation through the senses of reality. There is nothing but God, if you like; all is the one consciousness, including the apparently physical.
Incidentally, have you checked out Bernardo Kastrup?
His web site is here and his
YouTube channel is here. He's an Idealist, and so am I. If you haven't checked him out, do yourself a favour and do so: he's a highly articulate and engaging communicator. He's been interviewed twice or more on Skeptiko in the past.