The DNA arrangement could be explained by special creation just as well: God being economic. Why choose one explanation over another?
As WK has already pointed out, I don't think this is a fair asessment of the molecular evidence but that is definitely a topic's worth on its own. Suffice to say that it throws up enough questions about special creation to suggest evolution . Besides, I've been mulling this over and think that this statement is more revealing about the different attitudes:
Let's say we didn't have any of that.
This appears to be one of the main differences in how the two sides approach the argument, and is therefore of vital importance to understand.
It seems to me that arguments which are more symphathetic to the creationist side will constantly think of pieces of evidence totally independent of one another. As a result they often attempt to pick them apart one by one, hoping that it will unravel the whole theory.
Those coming from the evolution side of things are more likely to view it as a body of evidence. The evidence should be viewed as struts which form a very solid supporting framework for a theory. No one strut is more important than the others because they answer different questions. The only difference is the order they went up.
Hope that makes my position clearer - I fear that I may have gone over the top with the analogies