In Parts 1 and 2, we discussed what scientists call genetic load in relation to biblical history, demonstrating that in the past, close intermarriage would not have been problematic in a scientific or medical context. This is because the genetic degradation we see in DNA today would not have been anywhere near what it is now. Also, God’s Word indicates that laws against close intermarriage were not enacted until approximately 2,500 years after the creation and fall of humanity.

This understanding helped us unpack biblical answers to common questions such as, “Where did Cain get his wife?” and “How could only eight people (Noah’s family) after the flood account for the genetic viability and diversity of the population we have today?”

Now, in Part 3, we’ll look at objections to these explanations centered around the biblical creation model. This model posits that God created our two original parents frontloaded with maximum genetic diversity and that the human genome contained no errors. But since then, the human genome has gradually degraded over time because it has accumulated negative effects of genetic mutations over the past 6,000 years (approximately).

Genetic Load

Many scientists—experts in the field of genetics—are reaching the very real conclusion that humanity is, in fact, destabilizing on a genomic level through what they describe as genetic load. And we’ll be examining some documented proof from peer-reviewed secular sources to demonstrate that.

To begin, let’s get a definition of genetic load from a recent article from Current Biology.

Genetic load is defined as the reduction in the mean fitness of a given population relative to a population composed entirely of individuals with optimal genotypes devoid of deleterious alleles. In practical terms, harmful genetic variants in populations lead to genetic load. Decades of population genetics, including experiments and empirical studies that estimate the distribution of fitness effects, have shown that most novel mutations, which are changes to the DNA due to copying errors, are slightly deleterious (harmful). These mutations lead to lowered fitness (called ‘mutation load’).1

As you can see, that description fits well with our biblical argument. And if deleterious mutations were accumulating increasingly and fairly rapidly—and can make individuals less fit because of it—this could lead to reduced survival rates and eventual extinction over a relatively short period of time. Are such results being observed and reported in mainstream academia by credible, peer-reviewed journals? Why, yes, they are.

Genomic Collapse Is Real

In 2016, an article was published in Genetics titled “Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load,” from researcher Michael Lynch. Lynch works at Indiana University Bloomington as Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology and is an adjunct professor of physics. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and he believes wholeheartedly in the story of evolution.

In his study, Lynch argues that because of our modern, more protective lifestyle (e.g., we take our meds and have armies and police forces, better food and homes, and heat and in the winter and air-conditioning in the summer), humans aren’t experiencing natural selection’s effects like we would have in our past. And this “soft living” means the weaker among us (in context, meaning those who have weak genes and a lot of genetic load) aren’t being eliminated from the population before we reproduce, like we presumably would have in the past.

Why is he positing this? Because of what he is observing in the human genome—a concerning and continuous accumulation of deleterious genetic mutations in people, which, if it continues, will likely have disastrous results for us. The abstract to his paper states it this way:

The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern.2

The Death Spiral of DNA Degradation

Again—should you take the time to look through his paper—note that Lynch believes our accumulation of genome-degrading mutations is because natural selection isn’t eliminating people who have them from the population fast enough, the way he believes happened before we got our cozy, comfy, modern-day lives. So what is his long-term prognosis?

Summing up to this point, our current knowledge of the rate and likely effects of mutation in humans suggests a 1% or so decline in the baseline performance of physical and mental attributes in populations. . . .


. . . It remains difficult to escape the conclusion that numerous physical and psychological attributes are likely to slowly deteriorate . . . with notable changes . . . expected on a timescale of a few generations, i.e., 100 years.3

Here, he’s saying that his research indicates if each generation continues the downward genetic spiral that we are currently on, human beings really don’t have a long future, and we’re going to experience serious physical and mental challenges within a very short time. And he also mentions that these conclusions aren’t simply his, but have been reported by other researchers before him, citing other studies that were done much earlier than his.

A similar conclusion was arrived at previously in a less quantitative way at a time where today’s grand vision of personalized and precision medicine could hardly have been imagined (Muller 1950; Crow 1997).4

Cognitive Collapse

Indeed, as mentioned, one aspect he points to specifically (that has become a point of contention with some in the world of genetic study) is that of cognitive decline in the human population. Lynch states,

Most prior work on the effects of mutations has focused on simple measures of survival and reproduction. . . . Observational work may substantially underestimate the mutational vulnerability of the world’s most complex organ, the human brain. Because human brain function is governed by the expression of thousands of genes, the germline mutation rate to psychological disorders may be unusually high. . . .


. . . It has been suggested that there has been a slow decline in intelligence in the United States and the United Kingdom over the past century. . . . The key point here is that the one truly exceptional human attribute, brain function, may be particularly responsive to mutation accumulation, possibly exhibiting a response to relaxed selection greater than the 1% benchmark suggested above.5

Now, the studies Lynch is pointing to here, regarding the drop in intelligence being reported due to mutations, have come under fire by some. However, we’ll see shortly how they are largely based on evolutionary assumptions, not the facts we observe in the field of genetics. But first, let’s take a look at the conclusions reached from some of this research.

Science Supports Biblical History

One of these studies Lynch cited was released in two papers published in Trends in Genetics by the Stanford geneticist Dr. Gerald Crabtree. In the abstract of the second (titled “Our Fragile Intellect”), he says,

Analysis of human mutation rates and the number of genes required for human intellectual and emotional fitness indicates that we are almost certainly losing these abilities. If so, how did we get them in the first place, and when did things begin to change?6

Crabtree’s research demonstrates an overall loss of intelligence in the human population over the past 100 years, and it is interesting to read his questions surrounding his findings, as you can see him struggling to make it fit with the evolutionary timeline he holds to. He expresses the challenge even more clearly in this quote from a popular-level article discussing his research.

All of which leads to the conclusion that humans reached our intellectual height in the dim and distant past. “We, as a species, are surprisingly intellectually fragile and perhaps reached a peak 2,000 to 6,000 years ago,” Crabtree writes. “If selection is only slightly relaxed, one would still conclude that nearly all of us are compromised compared to our ancient ancestors of 3,000 to 6,000 years ago.”7

What he is observing in his cutting-edge research fits exactly with what the biblical creation model—based on biblical history—predicts.

Incredible, isn’t it? What he is observing in his cutting-edge research fits exactly with what the biblical creation model—based on biblical history—predicts. He is saying that he believes human beings were at peak intelligence about 6,000 years ago (maximum), and we’ve all degraded from that peak since then and are continuing to do so. Does that sound familiar?

His biggest question as to how to make all the data fit together comes from his former quote where he asks, “How did we get them in the first place, and when did things begin to change?” He’s asking this because in his mind, presumably, modern humans developed some 300,000 years ago as our more apelike ancestors gradually became smarter and smarter through incremental changes brought about by random mutations, which were sorted by natural selection. The very same types of random mutations that are corrupting our cognitive ability—and our entire genome—that natural selection can’t weed out!

“Critical” Thinking

Conundrums like this are why some evolutionists are criticizing these types of findings—they don’t fit the plan, so to speak. But again, these conclusions are not disputed because they conflict with the factual scientific observations being made—what they conflict with is the unobserved story of evolution.

A perfect example of this comes from a Berkely PhD graduate and geneticist Dr. Kevin Mitchell. In a review of Crabtree’s work, he touts the typical objections to genetic entropy we debunked in our last article (such as how natural selection could supposedly deal with mutational load, which it can’t), but he says the following as his primary reason for disagreeing:

It seems unlikely, a priori, that these mechanisms play an important role. First, it would seem bizarre that evolution would go to such lengths to craft a finely honed human genome over millions of years only to let all hell break loose.8

Do you see what he’s saying? “A priori” (i.e., before we even examine the data being referenced) we “know” that the incredibly designed human genome was put together by evolutionary processes (like random genetic mutations) over millions of years, so how could those same processes be the cause of everything breaking down and eventually bringing about our extinction?

A Concerning Conclusion

But that isn’t an argument—it’s simply a conclusion based on an assumption. He’s assuming the story of evolution is true in order to say observational research, such as Professor Lynch has done, is wrong. I can sympathize with this and understand why to a certain degree—the long-term (and even short-term) conclusion that can be drawn from this research is concerning indeed. And if I weren’t a Christian trusting in Christ’s eventual return and a fully restored new heavens and new earth, it would be absolutely terrifying to think about. Lynch summarizes it this way:

There is no obvious technological fix for the uniquely human goal of intentionally ameliorating the effects of mutation.9

This is the bottom line: This observational science is affirming to believers in once again confirming biblical history and the authority of God’s Word, but mutational meltdown is real, and there is no known way of stopping it. We aren’t evolving—we are de-evolving, so to speak, at a rapid and relentless rate.

The Blessed Hope of the Believer

We see that repeatable, operational science—far from disagreeing with a plain reading of God’s Word—does in fact line up perfectly with what we’d expect to see.

We must understand the fall of man was not simply a spiritual fall, but a corruption that imbued itself at a foundational level, even in our ability to reproduce. And once again, we see that repeatable, operational science—far from disagreeing with a plain reading of God’s Word—does in fact line up perfectly with what we’d expect to see.

Scripture speaks to the corrupted nature of the entire cosmos, and especially to that of God’s most precious creation: us. It is indeed a frightful thing to not have hope in the Savior of the world, Jesus, when you observe what Scripture clearly teaches in Isaiah 51:6 and elsewhere. We, like everything else on the planet, are wearing out.

The earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner.

However, for those who put their faith and trust in Christ as Savior and Lord, it goes on to remind us this:

But my salvation will be forever, and my righteousness will never be dismayed. (Isaiah 51:6)

And that is the blessed hope of the believer.