Unless sloppiness itself is a mindset. But I think of sloppiness as a
qualifier, that can in principle apply equally well to particular EC, PC,
YEC, etc. ideas. At one point some very careful and deeply thoughtful
(rather than simply smart, prolific, and sloppy) IDers were contributing to
this list (e.g., Steve Meyer), but they very understandably have other fish
to fry (trying to complete books, articles, etc.) and so are no longer
participating here. It's our loss.
I'd love it if this weren't the case: the biblical, apologetical, and even
philosophical theology of self-evident, miraculous, special creation would
be in certain respects much easier. And sloppy arguments are easy to
digest, in that they don't require careful thinking (indeed, they preclude
it). But easy doesn't equal either good or true, as we all know in other
contexts.
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Ron Chitwood
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 6:04 PM
> To: John E. Rylander; Calvin Evolution Reflector
> Subject: Re: The Anti-Evolutionary Arguments We See Here
>
>
> >>>>But instead, from nearly all anti-evolutionary comers, we get some
> higher or
> lower degree of rhetorical sophistication combined with scientific and
> logical dross, pretty much always in the directions of grotesque
> caricature,
> gross exaggeration, or just sloppy confusion.
> It's a pity. It really is.<<<<
>
> Depends on your mindset. If you basically believe evolutionary principles
> are true and that science is finding answers excluding God, you are
> correct. If your mindset is "...in the beginning, God...." then one finds
> the arguments cogent and usually intelligent. I, for one, find them much
> nearer the truth than macroevolutionists.