Okay, I have homework I should be doing, but I'm making a short post anyway.
We just had a little discussion on intelligent design creationism vs. evolution in philosophy class. A passing mention, really. But I started thinking: why is it that I assumed evolution was the more plausible answer, even though it couldn't be reproduced in a laboratory any more than creationism? One reason, I'm sure, is that creationism depends on intervention from something outside the system, whereas evolution allows the world to exist the way it is more or less independently of outside intervention. That seems to parallel my unwillingness to ask for help in anything, which I already decided was a mistake on my part. I wonder if this means I should re-evaluate my ideas about the origins of our world.
That's something to think about for latter. Right now I need to think about how to refactor some badly designed software. Which, by the way, I haven't even looked at yet.