Why Creationist Genetics?
Some will react by saying the very concept of 'creationist genetics' is an oxymoron - I disagree.
When I started my degree in Biology I was a convinced evolutionist. I agreed with all the mechanisms that are claimed not only to bring about natural selection but to provide the new genetic information that is selected. Evolution was my worldview.
Needless to say as the author of this website my views did not stay that way. I was converted and became a Christian. Now for those of us who are Christians that is our fundamental starting point from which everything else follows. At first my new found Biblical worldview competed with my evolutionary worldview, then it replaced it. What followed was a period of examining the evidence for evolution and noting the gaps in the evidence, the assumptions made and the conflating of ideas.
Conflation is a little hard to explain but I can perhaps give two examples.
Erik von Daniken sought to explain the manna provided in the desert by God to the Israelites. In his book he noted the existence of hydrocarbons that exist in space. On another page he suggested that these carbohydrates formed the manna that was collected by the Israelites. What he had done was clever but disingenuous, one one page he discussed hydrocarbons (petrol basically) and on another page continued that same discussion but switched to hydrocarbons (sugar basically). By conflating the two ideas, and hoping you don't notice, he sought to produce a convincing argument.
In evolution the same thing is done when natural selection is presented as evidence of evolution. It sidesteps the very real problem of the origin of new genetic information. When Richard Dawkins was asked on camera for evidence of a genuinely new genetic information he understood the question. The camera crew were asked to stop filming him while he considered the question. What followed has been hotly contested. The point is however that there was no ready answer. Natural selection describes how the best combination of genes is selected to continue the species. It does not however explain the origin of those genes. By conflating the two ideas many mistakenly present the evidence for evolution as 'watertight'. Others I believe, do so deliberately and I would include Dawkins in that group
Once you disentangle those two concepts you really begin to notice the holes in evolutionary theory. Simultaneously you notice that a creationist model explains why those holes exist and a Creationist model begins to make sense.
Humans for example have a problem when they have a diet without Vitamin C.
Other animals can make their own vitamin C we can't. The reason is not that we don't have the gene but we don't have a working gene. Somewhere along the way our gene
was damaged and we became reliant on our diet for vitamin C. This loss of genetic
information does not really fit in with the image of an ever improving species as portrayed
by evolution. It does however fit in with a Creationist model of God creating Adam and Eve
and their descendants being subject to death and decay. Where evolution sees mutation as a source of genuinely new information, creation sees mutation as a corruption of what was originally perfect.
Reinterpreting genetics within a Creationist worldview is what this site is about. The result is both more intellectually honest and has better predictive and explanatory power (IMHO).