Kent Hovind on claims for bacterial evolution

I don't follow creationist ministries any more, mainly because they cover so many different topics while I'm trying to keep my focus on the few I feel I understand best, but I did just happen to be watching Chris Pinto's film, Megiddo II (It's at You Tube) in which there is a brief interview with Kent Hovind who neatly sums up one of the main problems:  The claim that mutations are the fuel of evolution doesn't hold up because mutations don't increase but decrease "information" -- or as I've been putting it, they destroy DNA. 

The term "information" is used to refer to the DNA sequence of chemicals -- which can also be called a "code" or a "recipe" -- that produces a given trait in the organism.  A mutation is a change in the sequence of chemicals that make up a segment of the DNA which constitutes a gene, which of course changes the code or recipe or information of that gene that produces the trait. 

That's all mutations do, they alter DNA which is a destructive process, changing the sequence of a gene so that its function is interfered with, often producing no immediate detectable change in the organism, but in thousands of instances producing identifiable genetic disease.  Unqualified beneficial results do not occur.   Kent Hovind pointed out that the claim that mutations in bacteria demonstrate evolution because they evolve immunity to antibiotics is bogus, because the way this happens is that the mutation simply destroys the ability of the bacteria to latch on to the antibiotic.  It's a destructive process, which may have a very temporary beneficial effect, just as the fact that the sickle cell mutation protects against malaria is a beneficial effect, but overall the organism has been damaged, and information has been lost, not gained, the opposite of anything that would lead to evolution.  It was good to hear that spelled out.