Just to correct a couple of points and then offer my own impressions.
ID is not anti-YE, they just don't talk about the age of the Earth. At least one prominent IDer (Paul Nelson) is known to be a YEC. The ID movement has been attacked by at least one YEC group (Answers in Genesis) for not insisting on a young Earth.
There is no sign that ID will be useful in any field. If Dembski had tried to work out a general theory of how to detect design instead of trying to prove that life is designed then MAYBE he would have got somewhere. But is there any example where his "explanatory filter" has been usefully applied to any situation ? To the best of my knowledge the answer is "no".
To the best of my knowledge Wells has not identified ANY "bad science" done in the name of evolution - instead he chose to attack High Schoool text books.
My own view of Wells is that his approach was contemptible. Firstly he chose a "soft target" - the quality of science textbooks in general is not what anyone would like, as shown by a report issued by the Fordham Foundation at about the same time, and textbooks at that level often have to simplify their material for practical reasons. Even then he had to go over the top - the whole peppered moth discussion boils down to trivialities like using a staged photograph to illustrate the appearance of the two varieties. And since there are few if any creationists who would have any real objections to the peppered moth story at all the whole thing seems to be no more that an excuse to produce dubious accusations of fraud (and I have seen evidence that suggests that Wells engaged in intentional dishonesty in that chapter).
Behe is going nowhere. In _Darwin's Black Box_ he wrote off indirect routes for the evolution of irreducibly complex systems as being too unlikely to consider. But I have never seen any serious attempt to back up this claim or quantify it.
I put Dembski between Wells and Behe - nearer to Behe to be sure, but perhaps getting worse as tiem goes on. His failure to deal with most of Orr's criticisms of "No Free Lunch" is a case in point. As is his "Displacement Problem" which seems to be no more than question begging. Indeed, it seems that he tends to confuse his version of "specified complexity" (which had not been shown to apply to any living thing) with other versions (where complexity does NOT refer to improbability) which are agreed to apply to life.
™ Version 4.2