Behe had his chance at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, and did not impress.
In any case, their approach is the same one I used to rely on- assume God as the default, then find flaws in any other approach. It works well enough, especially for those who are not evolutionary biologists or physics researchers. But trying to prove God as the default, without focusing on alternatives, is pretty much impossible. Otherwise, it would've been done and those alternatives could be readily dismissed.
The best you can get, if you don't have sufficient education in those subjects, is that God is necessary- he must exist, in order to explain the universe and life. But that's as far as you can get with that approach. It explains why there are so many different religions and religious denominations- without a way to reliably research it, no one can determine who God is, only that he exists because someone had to create everything. I find that unsatisfying, if God was interested in me and wanted me to get to know Him.