Oh, yes, I'm a big fan of Behe and all the Discovery Institute crew (I'm not a Christian, btw). In fact I wrote an open letter to Behe, Stephen Meyer and Douglas Ax (having read all their books and then some) you might find interesting, when you have the time:
http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
Re Hoffman, I'm wondering if he missed something. Best way to explain is to compare his (very powerful) analogy of a computer interface as reality... to Einstein's 'space bending' 'explanation' of gravity ('gravity is not a force'), the proponents of which use a rubber sheet with a canon ball in it to represent gravity. See, this - the bending of space-- doesn't explain gravity AT ALL. And neither does the computer interface-reality analog. These are both analogies, not evidence. (Ask an Einsteinian by what process does the ball bend the sheet? He'll say 'gravity', not seeing the circularity....)
I'm not explaining this well. I just have the suspicion that there is some sort of circularity Hoffman is missing.