How do you figure "loss of function" is "more consistent" with creationism? Evolution means change. Snakes obviously had legs at one point and through evolution, lost them. How do you explain why some snakes have vestigal legs without resorting to "God made them that way". And if he did - why????
'Loss of function' means decline. A system that was previously functional has been lost. Defining evolution as 'change' merely made it consistent with a created biology that is in decline. It doesn't make 'goo to you' evolution true. I am constantly amazed at the lack of thinking ability of evos.
Losing existing function is not 'God making them that way'. Just the opposite. It is a 'loss of information' from a previously created state. Notice that snakes aren't said to be *growing* legs; no, they are *losing* them. Same w/ blind cave fish and other such 'examples' of evolution.
'Loss of function' examples simply do not support evolution except in the eyes of its most ardent supporters who turn evidence of decline into 'proof' of evolution.
Why do you think you have to do that? Because any real evidence to support evolution is missing? Hmmm?