Seems to me that shelving data that contradicts the belief system is what is "sloppy"   Just as you say there is zero evidence for a creator , we would say there is zero evidence for evolutionism. Of course you can point to certain recognised phenomenon , but nothing that demonstrates what is needed to change fish to philosophers. It is an article of faith on your part that organisms can change beyond the observable limits seen in nature. THE latter is an observation consistent with the creation model of reproducing "after their kind".   Interesting you are now saying the "theory will never "be true""" after all those interactions with snail in the past. Or perhaps you differentiate between the ...theory ..and the (supposed) ...fact... Of evolution. That would be convenient I suppose , but it is not just the details that have to be changed or rescheduled , but the supposed fact of the general theory of evolution that is questionable and speculative. I suspect also that you are not being quite straight when you say... theory... , since though the word can legitimately mean something might or might not be true, in science it is also used of gravity and other things generally considered observationaly verified . IMO though , evolutionary ideas are closer to the speculative meaning !.