Pugs's blog

The Second Shift - On Being A Good Husband

Sometime in college, I believe during my Introduction To Sociology class, I read a book titled The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild. The book studied the domestic dynamics of dual-career families, primarily in the middle class, though other socio-economic strata were touched upon. A dominant theme in the book was the gender inequity of the domestic responsibilities.

Creationism v. Evolution - Conclusion

So, while I know that my ranting against religion, against creationism, is primarily a cathartic release for me, it's an exercise in logic and reason for me as well. In the end, it is logic and reason that drives my atheism and it is the absence of logic and reason that perplexes me about religion generally and creationism specifically. I find it especially troubling that educated and otherwise intelligent, competent individuals will completely abandon reason in favor of religion. The folks that I work with, whom's intellect, business, and technical acumen I respect greatly are among those that baffle me!

Creationism v. Evolution - The Theory Of "Irreducible Complexity And Design"

Simply stated the argument of "irreducible complexity" is that if a system is complex to the point that removing a single piece of it causes the system to fail it indicates a designed, rather than gradually evolved, system. A common example of this is the eye. On a very basic level, the components of the eye are, the eyeball, the lenses, the light receptors, and the optic nerve. If you take one of these elements away, the entire system is useless, so how could this be the result of gradual evolution? Not one of those pieces serves a purpose unto itself so there would have been no reason for anyone of those pieces to have evolved. Clearly, some "intelligent force" designed the eye as a single unit.

Creationism v. Evolution - Scientific "Theories" Are Only "Theories"

This argument goes something like:

    Well, they call it the "theory of evolution" because it's only a theory; they really don't know if it's true or not. Since it's just a theory, alternative theories should be taught along side it, like the "theory of intelligent design".

On the surface, it's a strong argument. It's an especially strong argument for those who are not familiar with scientific concepts. When the wording is changed from "creationism" to "the theory of intelligent design", the argument becomes that much more compelling as it suddenly loses the trappings of theology and wraps itself in the mantle of "scientific theory".

Creationism v. Evolution - Evolution Requires More "Faith" Than Creationism

The argument that evolution requires more faith than creationism is a tough one to tackle because it is far more subjective and hinges entirely on that nebulous thing called "faith". Even so, this argument is not based on reason and rationality, it is based on subjective simplicity.

Basically, creationists argue that it is an incredible leap of faith to believe that the billions upon billions of accidents that would have had to happen from the beginning of time forward to produce intelligent human life actually happened. The odds of any one of those accidents occuring are astronomical, they claim, and the odds of all of those accidents happening is simply unbelievable. Comparatively, in the creationists' view, faith in God is much more intuitive.

Creationism v. Evolution - Where Are The New Species

The "where are the new species" argument is an interesting one in that it does not try to justify creationism, rather it tries to discredit evolution. In summary, this argument states: "if evolution is true, then how come there aren't new species and mutations happening now? If they are happening, where are they? What proof do you have?"

What I particularly enjoy about this argument is that it takes exactly the same approach to discredit evolution that I have taken in the past to discredit god/religion. I've jumped to the offensive with: "The Bible talks about miracles and God talking to people all the time, how come there are no miracles today? How come God doesn't talk to people today? God used miracles and fulfilled prophecies to convince people of his existence and power in the Bible, how come God doesn't do something miraculous to try to convince me now?"

Creationism v. Evolution - The Watchmaker Argument



The "Watchmaker" argument is compelling on an emotional/feeling level. You look at the human machine or a sunset/sunrise or whatever and you're struck with the majesty and complexity to the point of awe. In fact, whatever it is that has struck you strikes you so deep that you feel moved by it. Surely something so incredible can not be an accident! Surely the complexity of the human body or the ecosystem or the solar system or physical laws must be created or designed! Surely the beauty of a sunrise over the mountains or the fog hanging over a bay or the greenery of a rainforest must be the act of an artist! We've all had moments like that; I'm no exception.

Gun Control Issues In The Aftermath Of The Virgina Tech Tragedy

What happened at Virgina Tech last week hurts my heart and my head.

For the survivors and the victim's families, I can only hope that they are able to find some sort of peace and reckoning eventually. Loss, mourning, survivor's guilt, post-traumatic stress, are all difficult and powerful things to work through and I wish fervently that those directly affected by this travesty can find their way safely through these issues and that they receive any aid they need as they do so.

Creationism v. Evolution - The Gaps In The Fossil Record Argument

One of the creationists favorite arguments is to point out that there are gaps in the fossil record. They claim that if humans descended from apes that paleontologists would have found fossils of all the intermediary steps. Further, they argue that if evolution is true then all of the species would have their intermediary forms documented in the fossil record.

They claim that the absence of such intermediary forms, in spite of 150 years of desperate searching by Darwinists, is proof that evolution is untrue.

Creationism v. Evolution - The First Cause Argument

The first cause argument is most simply summed up with the question: "What caused the Big Bang?"

This argument is often drawn into the Evolution v. Creationism debate mistakenly. Evolotion is a theory regarding the process for biological development. The "First Cause" argument is an argument regarding Cosmology, the study of the origins of the universe. What a cosmological argument has to do with evolution, I'm not quite sure, but I'll address it anyhow as it is often thrown up against evolution.

Syndicate content