There are a few problems with the assumptions posed by Bryan’s article. For example, consider Bryan’s claim that:
Without mutations humans would all look alike, with the same eye color, hair color, skin color, facial shape, etc. Mutations are the basis of the nearly limitless variation observed in the human family. It is impossible to conceive of a genetic system without mutation, and if God is the architect of life and of the genetic systems that support life, He must have incorporated the process of mutation to provide the diversity needed to produce a vibrant human population.
This simply isn’t true. Random genetic mutations are not required to produce human variation. Rather, Mendelian variation forms the basis of phenotypic variability (the same is true for plants and animals that undergo sexual reproduction). In comparison, random genetic mutations strongly tend toward functional genetic deterioration with the vast majority of mutations that have a functional impact on the gene pool being detrimental - not advantageous at all. In fact, it is this very high “detrimental mutation rate” that is driving the human gene pool, as a whole, toward inevitable genetic meltdown and eventual extinction. The same is true for all slowly-reproducing species (like all mammals for instance).
Beyond this genetic problem with Bryan’s argument, there is also a problem with the idea that just because something is “natural” or “genetic” that it is “good” or “Ok” or part of God’s ideal plan for humanity. That simply isn’t true. A lot of diseases and disorders and harmful tendencies within humanity have a “natural” or genetically-inherited basis. This doesn’t make them “good” or “ideal” or part of God’s plan for humanity. Rather, God wishes to save us from our degenerated state, with all of our cultivated fallen and sinful tendencies, and put us back in line with what is in fact best for humanity. He wants to save us from our sinful state, not in our sinful state…