molecular darwinism
Dembski's new job - Decline of Evolution

Molecular evolution - the Dembski prediction
"In the next five years, molecular Darwinism the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level will be dead." (Touchstone magazine, 2004)

The phrase "molecular darwin*" picks up only five articles in Science Citation Index (from more than 20 million scientific articles over the past 20 years). In the sense that Dembski uses it, it's hardly a subject of current research. "Molecular evolution" is a broader term, but it's a current research topic. A search yields 4560 hits (articles). "Molecular phylo*" gave 3978 hits and "molecular evol*" gave 4561. With the latter, abbreviated phrase I found:
2013 - 790 hits
2012 - 783 hits
2011 - 766 hits
2010 - 769 hits
2009 - 748 hits
2008 - 759 hits
2007 - 661 hits
2006 - 683 hits
2005 - 620 hits
2004 - 572 hits
2003 - 554 hits
2002 - 473 hits
2001 - 481 hits
2000 - 414 hits
1999 - 411 hits
1998 - 336 hits
Molecular evolution is an area of increasing interest. Dembski might argue that molecular evolution involves primarily "inconsequential" changes. While this may be true, the hominoid Tre2 gene and FoxP2 genes have major effects at the organismal level. Biologists predict that "molecular evolution" will be of increasing interest and that more genes with major, pleotropic effects will be discovered. Since subcellular structures evolved over a long time span and perhaps billions of years ago in organisms that yield no useful fossil record, their evolution will be more difficult to unravel. What evidence is uncovered will likely be indirect and unconvincing to anti-evolutionary apologists. That such studies will yield positive evidence for "intelligent design" seems unlikely.

The one "molecular darwinism" paper - In search of molecular darwinism, Paul M. Sharp, Nature 385, 111-112 (1997) is worth reading