How could the molecular clock work with design happening?
The molecular clock has been vigorously debated since it was proposed, and many issues surrounding it are still contended. Overall, however, it remains a viable possibility. Michael Behe, DBB, 174
He is right both about questions remaining, and that it is a viable possibility.
But how could it be, if ID were correct? From Aristotle, down to Paley and the creationists, τεχνη or design has always been marked off from “nature” (nature in the exclusive sense) or “physis”. Indeed, Behe and most of the other prominent IDists like to suggest that the “Cambrian Explosion” is an obvious time when “design” was effected (DBB 27-28). And yet the molecular clocks (mostly DNA, now) tick through the “Cambrian Explosion” without marking any break from the usual processes, even though it is possible that more refined methods could yet capture an uptick in change (not the break that most would expect from a designer intervening, however).
For so long the various sorts of creationists have tried to argue that intervention by God would be obvious. Since it never has been, however, Behe increasingly writes as though no intervention can ever be observed, from any sort of mark of design, to any break in the molecular clocks.
This criticism has nothing to do with the accuracy of molecular clocks, which may in fact not be as reliable as some have claimed. It is that Behe never expects any of the effects of intervention to be visible in life (if these were found, you can be sure that most IDists, probably including Behe, would quickly adopt them, though). This, perhaps, is the most important change that ID has produced, since the older IDist Paley, and traditional creationists, always expected design to be observable–and generally not by christening complexity as “evidence for design,” like Behe illegitimately does.
As it happens, we could easily apply Paley’s criticisms of the evolutionary concepts of his day (before Darwin came up with a scientific theory) to Behe’s evidence-free designer/evolution-tweaking God, because a major argument of Paley’s book was precisely that design has positive evidence in its favor (arguable then, but not now), while evolutionary ideas were lacking in evidence (not entirely true, since common ancestry did comport well with evolution). Really, anyone who wanted to show conclusively how ID avoids all legitimate tests (falsification being the best rule-of-thumb) would do so by comparing Paley’s attempts to show that design is falsifiable, with Behe’s never-ending attempts to avoid all reasonable tests of ID.
This is part of a series of posts that I am combining into one long post, which may be found at Darwin’s Black Box.