Animals adapt to their surroundings. They change to better survive. Add enough of these changes over long periods of time together… and wala – you get evolution, right?
Those studying evolution often misinterpret beneficial mutations, those that give an organism a new and helpful attribute, as evidence for the theory. The big problem is that every studied mutation has always led to a loss of genetic information, even if a beneficial new attribute was added in the process. Real quickly one can realize that if all documented forms of mutations have ultimately led to a loss of genetic information, then how can it be possible for an original single celled organism to evolve, even gradually, into a human being?
Mutations often seem to add new information, but every documented instance is just duplications and rearrangements. Therefore the evolutionist is forced to concede that all genetic information ever to come into being was available in the first single-celled organism, a “fact” that can never be proven, and is not observed in the genetic information available today. Human DNA shares certain information with other organisms, but never 100%. Therefore if we have genetic information not comparable to other organisms, then we have unique information… and thus – where did it come from if every mutation has always been shown to decrease genetic information?
I would propose that the current scientific information actually shows that we are de-evolving. If accurate, this would be the exact opposite of evolution. Mendel’s Accountant, a free downloadable program created by scientists at Cornell University, allows users to determine the average survivability of those that inherit mutations. Scientists studying the effects of mutations from parents to children have determined that on average 60 new mutations occur through each generation. Using that average of 60 new mutations per generation, the algorithm tells us that the human race can only exist 350 generations or approximately 7000 years.
All of this modern observable scientific information reinforces the creationist position that God created humans perfectly about 6000 years ago, and as a result of sin – God discontinued upholding them and cursed all of creation, and thus initiated de-evolution. This led to the diseases and suffering we now see in the world. The overall conclusion is that the human race is actually unraveling, and that is evident before our eyes in the scientific data. According to the determination from Mendel’s accountant that humans can only exist up to 7000 years and the Biblical timeframe (according to the genealogies) that the world has been around about 6000 years, we can also make a prediction that humans have less than 1000 years to exist.
This has been an exercise in interpreting scientific evidence. Secular scientists see these mutations added up over time as leading to new information but do not actually have the data to conclude that. They make that determination based on their humanistic worldview that it HAD to be that way – there is no other explanation. On the other hand, creationists see the evidence of mutations and see a confirmation that the revelations in God’s word are true and observable in the modern world.
What is my evidence of de-evolution? Simple, it is all the evidence currently interpreted to be FOR evolution. I am asserting that the evidence has been misinterpreted due to a limited worldview. Creationists consider other factors (revelation, experience, intuition) other than just empiricism as evidence. Therefore when a creationist comes at the mutation evidence they don’t just see one outcome. This theory of de-evolution is actually perfectly in line with the second law of thermodynamics – that without intervention systems will always move from order to disorder.
The entire scientific community has been thoroughly trained that this world is at least 4 billion years old and that early humans were the “dumb” ones and we have since evolved our intelligence into the glorious technologically modern world we now see, without even asking if the technological masterpieces we have developed with our supposedly evolved minds are even essential to life? Some would say – ‘well we now cure diseases’ and such, without asking why we have so many diseases! People accept billions of years based on radiometric dating techniques that can never be verified. You have to assume that decay rates have never changed in all of history. That could never be verified. In fact creationists have good reason to believe that two earth-shattering events happened that very well would have affected those decay rates: a 6-day creation and a worldwide flood. The fossil record and geologic strata are also extremely good evidence of the after-effects of that worldwide flood.
Keep in mind that creationists accept mutations leading to beneficial outcomes. This is called natural selection or adaptation. This is 100% proven and actually reinforces the Biblical mandate for creatures to reproduce “after their kinds” (Genesis 1:25). This is what we observe in today’s world. Coincidentally, it is also good evidence as to how Noah could fit two of every animal on earth on an Ark. He only needed representatives from each original created kind, i.e. – one set of cat, one set of dog – not all the variations.
I understand this theory of de-evolution goes completely against the “doctrine” of millions of years and will not be accepted. To accept it would give some credibility to Biblical claims, and by default they can’t allow that. If they allow that, there are much more moral and eternal ramifications to consider! This is a test to show that science does not disprove the Bible or creation; it actually continues to reinforce it.