I confess, I'm a little lost when it comes to the mathematics of magnetic fields and magnetic moments. One criticism I've read of Humphreys' theories is that he calls anything close to his posited decay rate a confirmation, and I notice at your link that his own figure for "Spacecraft measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field strength" show a wide range whose maximum is just barely within his projection. I'm not sure how impressive that really is.
I also read (Wikipedia) that "Whether the magnetic field changed to any significant degree between the Mariner 10 mission and the MESSENGER mission remains an open question. A 1988 J.E.P. Connerney and N.F. Ness review of the Mariner magnetic data noted eight different papers in which were offered no less than fifteen different mathematical models of the magnetic field." So Humphreys may be cherry-picking the measurements that "confirm" his theory and ignoring others.
Tell me about evolution’s.
I already mentioned the flu. Another is that isolated populations in different environments will evolve into distinct species. This has been observed many times--my favorite example are the lizards which, only 36 years after being introduced to a Mediterranean island, evolved whole new structures in their stomachs. If creation is not ongoing, as you say, it seems like it'd be pretty hard to explain where those new structures came from.
The stock creationist/intelligent design response is that the information for those structures was present in the lizards' genes and just got expressed in the new environment--i.e., adaptation not evolution. My question in response is why intelligent design advocates aren't looking for unexpressed information in various animals' genes and making predictions about what could be expressed in the right environment--that seems like it'd be a fruitful avenue of inquiry and, if successful, would lend a lot of weight to the theory. But somehow, none of them seem to be doing that.
That really seems to be the case here, however. At the very least, you (and others) are jumping the gun by calling it evidence for evolution.
Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html>
I'm not sure which of the articles best describes the genetic situation, but if the genetic information was already there and just triggered by diet and environment (and my guess is that is almost certainly the case), then it's more in line with the creation model than evolution.
The NatGeo article starts off with "Italian wall lizards ... are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out." I would translate that "our theory says this should take millions of years, but it only took 36." The most common question creationists get is "How did noah get all of the animals on the ark?" How many animals needed to be on the ark to produce the diversity we see today? Fewer than you'd think.
I didn't mean to ignore the flu shots, but it's bed time. Quick answer - The flu shots are basically selecting between known strains and forcasting which ones will be predominant in a given year. There's no help from evolutionary theory in that.
Are viruses living? That's debatable, but on their own the answer seems to be no. Do they tend to swap genetic code? Yes. Does that make them more complex? No, they just become harder for the host to recognize and attack. Does mutation of viruses resemble the type of mutation that would be required for creating complex life forms from simple ones? No.