Several months ago, I was involved in an online debate over evolution vs. creation. The debate went pretty much as expected. Then as the debate was winding down, an interesting question was asked. In essence, the question was this: “Why bother debating over evolution vs. creation. That was a long time ago. What’s the point?” This is my answer to that question.

Rodney had been distracted for weeks when one of his friends cornered him and demanded an explanation for his behavior. When he admitted that he had been pondering the meaning of life, his friend suggested he visit the local wise man.

After climbing for hours, he finally reached the cave where the old hermit lived. Before approaching the cave, he rested for a bit to tend to his sore muscles, scrapes and bruises. Finally, gathering his courage he approached the cave and asked the old man, “Why am I here?”

“You are here,” the old man replied, “to get me a cold beer. Now get moving. I’m thirsty!”

The debate over the theory of evolution vs. creation is ultimately a debate over the meaning of life. Our view of the origin of humanity essentially determines our view of the world we encounter in our daily lives.

At some point in their lives, most people ponder the same question as Rodney. Getting a beer for a senile old coot is a pretty poor excuse for a meaningful life. Yet the answer evolution gives is even worse: “There is no meaning. You are merely an accident.” On the other hand, the answer creation gives is that every person was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) for a reason; there are no accidents.

To see the impact of the debate over evolution vs. creation, I’m going to look at how these worldviews affect a person’s thinking in four specific areas: human rights, marriage, the rule of law and the reliability of the Bible.

Human Rights

One of the core theories of evolution is that of natural selection. Natural selection says that the weak perish while the strong survive and thrive, passing on their genes to the next generation. Those who survive overcome competition from weaker organisms around them, including those of their own species. The only rule is survival over others and producing as many offspring as possible.

By this rule, there is nothing wrong with the stronger taking resources from the weaker, even their lives. Whether taking resources is cheating someone out of their money — including a fair wage — enslavement, or even killing them (yes, I’m talking about murder), it’s all fair game under the survival of the fittest. Those who are most successful at eliminating competition without creating new competition and are able to gather strong allies are the most likely to survive to produce children. The exact methods of achieving success doesn’t matter to evolution, though I suspect quick and permanent removal of competition (i.e. fatal) would tend to trump more uncertain methods such as negotiation.

The theory of natural selection also requires the removal of the weak and infirm in order to move evolution along and remove “unnecessary” burdens on the healthy. Thus the elderly, the handicapped, and those with other “undesirable” physical traits would need to be removed from the gene pool in order to allow humanity to advance. In the effort to create a “super race” Nazi Germany instituted sterilization in 1934 and “euthenasia” in 1939. (See here and here.) And Germany was not the only country to institute such programs. Other countries, including the United States, have instituted forced sterilization and sometimes euthanasia programs in an attempt to “improve the human race” by preventing those with “defects” from reproducing. (Also see the first paragraph of this article by Margart Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually merged with similar organizations to became Planned Parenthood.)

By contrast, the Bible teaches that humans are created in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), that God knows and celebrates every human life (Psalm 139:13-16), and that we are to always act in each others’ best interests as much as in our own (Matthew 22:39) even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44), and take care of the weakest members of society (James 1:27).

The most famous passage in America’s founding documents is the beginning of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Under the theory of evolution, this sentence is meaningless because there is no creator, there is no equality, there is no such thing as unalienable Rights because there is no higher authority which establishes those rights; there is only stronger and weaker.

Marriage

A successful species by evolutionary standards is one which produces many successful offspring. Therefore, what matters is reproduction, not love; impregnation, not marriage. As long as many children are produced, it doesn’t matter what else occurs.

Such a standard not only allows for multiple partners, it encourages them, especially for men. By Darwinian standards, the man who fathers hundreds of children is significantly more successful than a man who fathers only 1 or 2. It should also be obvious that marriage is not necessary in order to father children. Rather, it is actually an impediment to evolutionary success.

In fact, this logical extension of evolution’s theory can, and has, been used to justify rape as a means of reproduction. (See “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion” by Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer. I will not link to this book from my site. It can be found on Amazon.) Of course, because evolution is based only on natural laws and has no moral laws, there is no built in impediments to non-heterosexual behavior, such as homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

By contrast, the Bible says that humans were designed to live in a lifelong exclusive marriage relationship consisting of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6) where each meets various needs of the other.

The Rule of Law

As I’ve mentioned before, the theory of evolution is based upon the idea that only the strong survive. Another way of putting this is the “rule of claw,” where power is the only fact that matters. Or as Mao Tse-Tung put it, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Under evolution, the only laws which exist are natural laws and consequences. While it would not be possible for a man to deny or break the law of gravity, there are no inherent moral restrictions. For example, lying would be okay as long as you could get away with it. Stealing would be okay as long as you didn’t get caught. Heck, even murder would be okay as long as the consequences — such as someone else seeking revenge — can be avoided.

In fact, under evolutionary theory, all laws are merely human inventions. They can be created, changed and abolished or ignored at a whim by those with the right kind of power. So instead of laws being based on eternal principles, they become a means for one group to impose its will on another.

One hard-core atheist I debated accused Christians of attempting to impose their morality on others. What made it so hard for me to swallow was that his statement was in response to links to studies showing why the behavior under discussion was a really bad move. It wasn’t until I thought through this principle that I finally understood why he sees it that way. The logic works like this:

1. Evolution means that there is no God. (Or at least that there isn’t a “god” powerful enough to matter.)
2. Therefore, all religions/gods are made up by men.
3. Therefore, all moral rules taught by those religions are also made up by men.
4. Therefore, attempting to impose those rules for any reason is an attempt by one group to impose their will on another. In this case, the method of imposition just happens to be religion.

By contrast, if creation is actually true, then there truly is a God who has the authority (the creation belongs to the creator, lock, stock and barrel) and the power to impose and enforce moral laws. There is a standard of moral laws which supersedes all human authority. It is absolute and inviolable with no escape from consequences for even the smallest infraction. Attempting to live outside those laws becomes like playing russian roulette; you may escape the consequences for a little while, but not forever.

In fact, the concept of forever comes into play here. Under evolution, this life is all there is. Once you die, that’s it. There is no reward, no punishment. “He who dies with the most toys wins” and “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” become valid lifestyle choices. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain become all there is to life.

But under creation, this life is no longer all there is. It is merely a training and testing ground. This life is merely a temporary flash in the pan where any rewards received or pain endured are mere sparks which are gone in an instant. (Romans 8:18) Even if justice is not done in this lifetime, it is perfectly carried out in the next.

Reliability of the Bible

In the book of Genesis, the Bible clearly states that God created all life in 6 literal days. When He was finished, He had created a perfect earth with two perfect humans. Those humans made a choice which resulted in death and destruction entering the world.

Thousands of years later, according to the Bible, a man who was “God In The Flesh” walked the earth using the name Jesus. He lived a perfect, sinless life and was crucified for His trouble. Three days later, He returned to life on His own.

Both incidents are equally difficult to believe. And both depend on each other. Without the creation, there was no perfection and no fall to be rescued from, thus no reason for Jesus to die in the first place. Without the ability to create life in the first place, there is no power to return to life after death.

The theory of evolution strikes at the very reliability of the Bilical narrative. If the incident of creation didn’t actually happen, then the Bible either lied about what happened, or it is mistaken. Either way, the Bible cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything — including Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. And if Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead as an objective fact, then Christianity is a fraud.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

(1Cor. 15:12-19, NIV)

By contrast, if the Biblical account of creation is true then it becomes obvious that God can do anything and the entire Biblical account is trustworthy.

Objective Truth

Ultimately, the debate over evolution and creation is the debate over objective truth. There can be only One. There is only one reality which we all share. Either we accurately recognize what that reality is and act accordingly, or that reality will grind us to dust without even slowing down if we try to oppose it. Recognizing objective truth is accurately recognizing reality. That is what science is supposed to be — the search for objective truth. Yet the “science” of evolution has become anything but the search for truth.

Even as evolution science has made claims of being “objective” it has been defined as only accepting naturalistic answers. Any possible conclusion of design or creation in the debate over origins is automatically deemed as “unscientific,” even if that is where the evidence leads.

It’s as if a math teacher was giving problem sets to her students. As she hands out the papers, she tells the students that ‘4’ is never a correct answer. In fact, if she sees the answer ‘4’ anywhere on the paper, that paper will be given an ‘F’ grade. Among the problems, the students find these: ‘2 + 2 =’ and ‘5 - 1 =’. What will the students write as their answers? It won’t be ‘4’ even if that is the correct answer. (Unless, of course, a student is as stubborn about truth as I am.)

If you think I’m overstating the case, just consider this section from Nancy Peacey’s excellent book, “Total Truth”:

Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin gave the game away in a highly revealing article in the New York Review of Books a few years ago. Lewontin starts out by admitting the darker side of science (it makes extravagant claims, causes environmental problems, and so on). And yet, he quickly adds, we must still prefer science to any form of supernaturalism. Why? Because, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
…
“It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation” of the world, Lewontin explains. “On the contrary,” he says, “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations.” Translation: We first accepted materialism as a philosophy, and then refashioned science into a machine for cranking out strictly materialistic theories.

Finally, he warns that this materialism must be “absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” That final phrase points to what’s really at stake in the evolution controversy. Why does Lewontin urge us to define science as applied materialism? Because otherwise we might let a “divine foot in the door.” And we all know what happens then: When a salesman gets his foot in the door, pretty soon his brooms and brushes are all over your living room. If a “divine foot” ever got in the door of science, that would provide the groundwork for the entire Christian worldview, with its theology and biblical morality. That’s what sends a shiver of fear up the spine of many secularists.

Let’s face it, the Bible claims to be objective truth. It says that God “created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) It says that God’s handiwork is displayed all around us. (Psalm 19:1-2) It says that Jesus actually came to earth “in the flesh.” (1 John 4:2) In other words, it claims to be an accurate historical record of actual events. Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable for honest science (without the naturalistic biases) to agree with the Bible.

That is why the debate over evolution and creationism matters. It is a debate over objective truth. It is a debate over whether the Bible is factually accurate; and that is a debate Christians must be willing to engage in. If we do not, we automatically concede “objective truth” status to those who refuse to accept even the possibility of God’s existence. And in so doing, we abandon many who are searching for the honest objective truth to eternity in hell.

Exercise: I discussed four areas where the starting assumptions about evolution and creation create diametrically opposed approaches to the issues. Can you think of any other areas where a person’s preference for evolution or creation produces vast differences and what those differences are? Some possibilities include: self-esteem, the role of government, charity, health care, biotechnology, the environment, etc.

Welcome to Vox Apologia VII!

This week’s topic is “Evolution vs. Creation: So What?”

No other field of scientific debate generates more conflict than that of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design. In one recent debate, I was asked if this question really matters. What is your answer? Is the debate between evolution and creationism truly important? If so, why?

To submit your entry, send an email to:

Please include the following information:

• The name of your post
• The URL of your post
• Your blog’s name
• Your blog’s URL
• Your name optional
• A summary of your post optional (If you don’t include a summary, I will have to write one.)

Please have your entry in by Midnight, February 27th.

Update: Here is a link to the Vox Apologia FAQ.

Note: This post will remain at the top of The Greatest Pursuits until the entries are posted. Scroll down for my current posts.

The results from the third Vox Apologia have been posted. This time around the topic was “Euthenasia”. You can find links to the entries over at Revenge of Mr Dumpling.

It’s late at night. The silent snow has been falling all day, blanketing the world in a thick blanket of glistening white snow. Before sleep arrives to end the day, the deep rumble of a snow plow’s engine breaks the silence. As it approaches, the deep scraping sound of the plow blade against the road and the rattle of chains adds to the cacophany heard as the snow is being cleared from the road. As the plow finally passes the window, one more noise is produced which cannot quite be heard over the rumble, scraping and rattles: the sound of cinders and salt being spread to ensure traction in spite of the remaining snow and ice.

When I saw that “Digital Salt” was the topic of Vox Apologia II my first thought was, “Oh boy! What the heck am I gonna do about that?” Should I joke about using a scanner, or better yet, a transporter to send salt through the internet? Should I discuss all the uses for salt? Its place in history? Its place in our language? Its chemical makeup? Those are all (mostly) good ideas, but I think I’ll leave them to someone else who will probably handle them with more aplomb than I.

In John 8:32 Jesus said, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” If knowing the truth sets a person free, then those who do not know the truth are not free. They’re in bondage. So how can Christians help others know the truth so that they can also be free?

The key to knowing what is true and what is false is quite simply the ability to distinguish one from the other — otherwise known as judgement. The key skill for reaching sound judgements is critical thinking, i.e., the ability to evaluate evidence and use reason to reach an appropriate conclusion.

Several days ago, I stated that postmodernism is the snow and ice of critical thinking. Postmodernism is the idea that there is no absolute truth. What a person believes is considered to be more important than what the facts are, therefore any evidence which contradicts a belief is discarded as “tainted,” “biased” or otherwise unreliable.

A car’s tires need to have contact with the road in order to push the car towards its destination. When there is snow and ice on the road, it becomes extremely difficult for a car to go from point A to point B. Just getting the car moving can be difficult. Stopping at appropriate points can be very difficult. And unless real care is taken, the car can slide into a ditch or worse.

Facts are the solid objects we need to have contact with in order to propel our thinking towards truth. If a fact is disregarded, a person’s thoughts can go sliding in the wrong direction, or may not begin moving at all. It’s also possible for a person to reach the correct conclusion, but without facts, that conclusion is based more on chance than reason, and they may find themselves sliding past the correct stopping point.

One of the properties of salt is its ability to lower the freezing point of water, thus allowing ice to melt. That property is why snow plows spread salt after they pass. By melting the remaining ice and snow, the salt allows the car tires to make contact with the road surface, gain traction, and accurately propel the car to its intended destination. If temperatures are too cold though, the salt has no more effect than simple stones.

As the “salt of the earth,” I believe Christians are given the ability to melt away the snow and ice coming between those who are lost or in bondage and the truth which can free them; but only up to a point. If we take the analogy of the snow plow further, we could say that God is the snow plow. He has to first plow the road, then put us where we can be effective. (Putting salt on an unplowed road is ineffective due to salt’s limits in how much frozen water it can effect.) And in some cases, we will encounter people who are too cold for the salt to cause any melting.

I think I’ve effectively beaten this particular salt analogy to death. Yet I haven’t even looked at the digital part of the topic yet. When I took a look at the passage where Jesus calls Christians salt, I was fascinated by the context:

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”

(Matt. 5:11-16, NIV)

It’s interesting that those Jesus calls “the salt of the earth” are facing opposition and persecution for following Christ. That is certainly happening on the internet. This seems like a thought worth exploring; perhaps some other time.

Jesus is still speaking to the same group of people as He continues on to call them “the light of the world.” The conclusion is that those who are “salty” are also to be working to spread the light of God’s love and truth as far as they can. Jesus doesn’t mention the means for spreading the light, merely that it should be broadcast far and wide.

The recent presidential election showed that the internet has become a powerful method of spreading the truth. (It’s also just as powerful at spreading deception.) Large numbers of low profile individuals with specific and varied skills are able to work together to determine the truth of a matter by examining evidence and applying critical thinking.

If we are to carry out our function as “the salt of the earth” and “light of the world,” it is necessary to make use of all the means of communication at our disposal. The Internet is only the most recent such tool. Fortunately, it can be highly effective, allowing the ability to delve into the details of facts and evidence necessary to identify the truth. This ability to dig into any topic far beyond any other communications medium is what accounts for its growing influence and popularity in today’s society.

What will people find as they look to the internet for information to base their lives on? More of the same godless worldview dominating today’s society? Certainly. If they are truly searching for the truth, they must also be able to find it online. As more and more people turn to the internet as their means of obtaining news and information we must become the salt and light of the digital world as well as the physical world, just as Jesus commands.

(Note: There is one missing idea from this essay. That is an exploration of how we can actually cause postmodernistic thinking to melt away. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please add them to the comments about this article.)

Thomas Sowell has written an excellent article, “I beg to disagree”, on the declining art of handling disagreements using reason and facts and the rise of personal attacks. He begins with:

My assistant sorts the incoming mail into various categories, such as “critical mail,” “fan mail,” etc. But the so-called critical mail is seldom critical. It may be bombastic or vituperative or full of pop psychology, but it seldom presents a critical argument based on facts or logic.

Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin. You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

Disagreements are inevitable whenever there are human beings but we seem to be in an era when the art of disagreeing is vanishing. That is a huge loss because out of disagreements have often come deeper understandings than either side had before confronting each other’s arguments.

Thomas bemoans the rise of ad hominem attacks as a means of public discourse. He then goes on to point out that honest disagreements discussed rationally with facts and logic almost always leads to the betterment of everyone involved; even if the actual disagreement itself is never fully resolved. Proverbs 27:17 states, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Such “sharpening” can only occur if the primary goal in a disagreement is the pursuit of truth and not the destruction of the other party.

His article is especially timely, arriving just after the start of the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project. As Douglas Groothius writes in Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist:

Our sampling of Jesus’ reasoning, however, brings into serious question the indictment that Jesus praised uncritical faith over rational arguments and that He had no truck with logical consistency. On the contrary, Jesus never demeaned the proper and rigorous functioning of our God-given minds. His teaching appealed to the whole person: the imagination (parables), the will, and reasoning abilities.

For all their honesty in reporting the foibles of the disciples, the Gospel writers never narrated a situation in which Jesus was intellectually stymied or bettered in an argument; neither did Jesus ever encourage an irrational or ill-informed faith on the part of His disciples. With Jesus as our example and Lord, the Holy Scriptures as our foundation (2 Tim. 3:15–17), and the Holy Spirit as our Teacher (John 16:12–15), we should gladly take up the biblical challenge to outthink the world for Christ and His kingdom (2 Cor. 10:3–5).

In other words, Jesus never resorted to “because I say so” when questioned about his teachings, even when those questions were asked by his enemies as a form of attack. Nor did he engage in any ad hominem attacks. He either explained his teachings based on the authority of scriptures and logic or demonstrated his authority through miracles. For example:

And getting into a boat, He crossed over, and came to His own city. And behold, they were bringing to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed; and Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Take courage, My son, your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk’? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — then He said to the paralytic — “Rise, take up your bed, and go home.” And he rose, and went home.

(Matt. 9:1-7, NASB)

Notice that Jesus didn’t simply claim the authority to forgive sins. He offered a logical proof known as modus ponens by Those Who Study Logic. His logic was fairly simple:

1. Only God can forgive sins. (Stated by the scribes) A = B
2. Only God could heal the paralytic.  B = C
3. Jesus did heal the paralytic, therefore he is God.  C = D
4. Therefore, he has the authority to forgive sins.  A = D

As christians, we are God’s representatives on this earth. “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.” (2 Cor. 5:20a, NIV) Just as Jesus was, we are also faced with those who question the authority of the Bible and the reality of God. Sometimes those questions are asked by someone who is genuinely searching for the truth, and sometimes by those who are attempting to attack the truth. Either way, answering such questions with “because I said so,” or “you just have to believe anyway,” simply won’t cut it. Just as Jesus did, we must “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1Pet. 3:15-16, NIV)

There is only one way to be able to give a gentle, respectful and meaningful answer: to know what the answers are! The study of facts and logic to answer such such questions has been given a name by Those Who Like To Give Fancy Names: Apologetics. The term “apologetics” comes from the greek word “apologia” which literally means “defense,” “answer” and “account”. (Apparently, Those Who Like To Give Fancy Names are part of the group of Those Who Like Obscure Languages.)

We are all human, so it is impossible to know all the answers, just as it is impossible for us to actually be perfectly sinless. Yet God still expects us to make the effort. “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” (Heb. 12:1, NIV) Just as we are to make every effort to get rid of sin in our lives, we are also to make every effort to study the Bible as well as the facts and evidence surrounding the Bible. Both tasks require constant effort.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

(Deut. 6:4-7, NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

(2 Tim. 2:15, NIV)

I believe the major cause of suffering in this world is the consequences of sin — failing to apply the word of God to our lives. Before anyone can apply the Bible to their life, and thus avoid sin, they must first know what it says. For those of us who are christians, this means that we must study the Bible so that we can learn what it says and what it means. And we cannot explain the good news of the Bible to those who do not understand it unless we first understand it ourselves.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(1 Cor. 1:18, NIV)

When we as the body of Christ (the church) are unable to explain the “message of the cross” in a rational, logical and accurate manner to those who are dying all around us, then they continue to think of the message as foolishness. When that happens, we have failed in our mission and allowed someone to perish.

Our mission as a church is to share the good news of the gospel with anyone who is willing to listen. Our goal is to make it hard to go to hell because the path to God is so well marked that it is impossible to miss it. We are on a mission behind enemy lines to locate survivors and give them a map to safety. Apologetics — the knowledge and understanding of the Bible and why it is true — is that map. We cannot share that map unless we first possess it ourselves.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

(John 8:31-32, NIV)

(Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin for using Mr. Sowell’s article in discussing her struggles with ad hominem attacks due to her own pursuit of truth.)

(This article has been entered in the first Vox Apologia sponsored by RazorsKiss and Every Thought Captive.)