As a Christian, I am a Young Earth Creationist. Whiile some Christian's hold other positions allowing for an old Earth or Evolution from a common ancestor, I find that Young Earth Creationism best fits the intent of the relevant passages.
I do understand the principles of Evolution from a common ancestor (abbreviated Evolution for the rest of this post) and would be interested in learning more of the evidence for it. From my current understanding, however, it seems to be inconsistent with the economic theory of disruption. This is odd, because economists frequently make analogies to evolution and vice versa. In all other aspects, they seem to correlate rather well. If you have never heard of disruption, I recommend reading watching the video on my blog post: Free Market Approach to Health Care. As part of the hour plus video, Clayton Christensen explains the principles of disruption relevant to this blog post with several powerful examples.
In the current model of Evolution, the development of increasingly complex organisms seems to progress "steadily" relative to the entire history of Evolution. There are extinctions, and the organisms that take over as the dominant species are usually smaller and better able to survive in the environment, but their common ancestor with the extinct organisms is always relatively recent compared to the entire history of Evolution. Instead, we should expect that the simplest and most frequently reproducing organisms, such as bacteria and insects, would be the most active members of the Evolutionary tree, developing child species that eventually replace the higher order organisms that we know today. While Evolutionary apologists and transhumanists love to talk about seeing the next stage of Evolution from mankind, I claim that under disruption, that if Evolution were true, the next stage of it would come not from human beings, but from a simpler organism which eventually disrupts us.
In the video, the moves upmarket for steel were clearly defined already, moving from rebar to structural beams and sheet metal. In biology, which might be less clear, I would define it as better access to better resources. That means finding better shelter, developing more powerful defenses against competitors and predators, and getting access to better quality food. For food, that would mean moving from animals that have been dead for several hours to killing healthy small animals or killing sick larger ones. Eventually they move upmarket to killing larger, healthier animals and take their habitat.
Having discussed this with some friends, they came up with several objections. The first objection was that the less complex organisms are unable to replace more complex ones because the niches for more complex organisms are already being filled. This objection essentially implies that disruption does not apply to biology. However, if we observe "invasive" species, species that are accidentally moved from one region to another, they often perform phenominally well and become pests. This shows that there is plenty of ecological room for less complex organisms to evolve and fill new niches. In other words, it is not the more complex organisms that are keeping bacteria and insects from evolving.
The second objection was that they actually have disrupted the more complex organisms. They reasoned that bacteria and insects are everywhere already and don't need to increase in complexity. This objection misunderstands disruption however. In the video, when the disruptive companies saturate the market, they need to move upmarket or die. As I described earlier, they would do this by killing larger animals rather than relying on them to die first which artificially limits their food supply. Some insects like mosquitos do feed on larger animals, but they do so at great risk to themselves, are limited by temperature and habitat, and have plenty of predators. They have done very little to improve on that so I do not think that they have moved upmarket like I am describing. Mosquitos are not limited by food supply so much as other factors.
It is also possible that biologists have accounted for disruption in Evolution and that I have not noticed it. Or, perhaps they have left their genetic histories open enough that disruption can apply without proving them right or wrong. I am interested in discussion here.