My Take: The case for including ethics, religion in science class
Science teachers must make their subject relevant to students' lives by tackling religion and ethics, argues Arri Eisen.
December 15th, 2011
10:48 AM ET

My Take: The case for including ethics, religion in science class

Editor's note: Arri Eisen, PhD., is professor of pedagogy at Emory University’s Center for Ethics, Department of Biology, and Graduate Institute of the Liberal Arts.

By Arri Eisen, Special to CNN

A referendum that would have restricted in vitro fertilization in Mississippi, disagreements on the causes of global warming, the question of how to allot health care resources for desperate cases at the beginning or end of life.

Many of today's headlines and hyper-polarized political debates happen at the borders of science and society, especially where science meets ethics and religion.

At the same time, in at what first appears to be in an unrelated domain, President Barack Obama and others call for more and better science education in America to compete in innovation with rising giants India and China. This at a time when American science literacy appears to be decreasing, and even students who like science drop like flies from that pursuit once they hit college and its huge introductory lecture courses.

Is it possible that rethinking the ethical calculus of how we teach science could enhance the pool of future scientists and enrich the quality of conversation around controversial issues?

What’s the connection? Well, from kindergarten on we often teach science as a body of information not relevant to anything going on in the world. This is a cell and these are its parts; memorize them and their functions. This is the human body and these are the different systems of which it is composed.

Such facts are important, but without a meaningful context (cell functions gone awry can cause cancer; all the body systems talk to each other, so depression can affect your cardiovascular system) such information has little real substance and is poorly retained.

This approach violates the first rule of good teaching: Integrate the information into your students’ lives and worldviews, including those based in religion or ethical systems, and translate it into something they can connect with and use. Science has an especially rich and often fraught role to play in society; if we don’t at least acknowledge this we imply it is unimportant.

Not surprisingly, studies show that when teachers do integrate science knowledge into students' lives, the students learn the science better.

But rather than incentivize teaching innovation that would allow science educators to discuss religion and ethics –- for example, creationism in light of evolution and vice versa, or the scientific and ethical implications of stem cells and in vitro fertilization – many teachers are afraid to even mention these issues, despite their importance, for fear of losing their jobs.

The classic example is the public school biology teacher without tenure who, understandably, finds it much easier to skip any discussion of evolution because of its potential controversial nature. This would be OK except for the small detail that evolution is the fundamental, underlying principle of all biology.

I teach biology at a private university. When I ask students in my cell biology course, “How many of you believe in evolution?” almost all of them raise their hands. When I ask them, “How many of you think something in addition to evolution accounts for humans being on earth as we now exist?” almost all of them raise their hands.

Two inconsistent thoughts coexist without an attempt to reconcile or integrate them. It is this kind of dissonance of fundamental beliefs and science that good education should address and help explore, and certainly not ignore. Only when science educators can proactively engage all societal elephants in the room and illustrate science's relatively limited power will two vitally important things happen:

First, as they are forming their beliefs — whatever they may be — students will be aware of the nature of science and its relation to complex ethical and religious issues. That means they’ll better appreciate different types of evidence and will be more likely to argue from and about that evidence rather than from emotion. Second, more students initially interested in science will continue to pursue it through college because they will better see its value and importance to the big issues and will learn science better.

How to accomplish this? How to break the vicious circle? One way is to frame the benefits differently — economic competition and innovation, national security, improved learning, or more substantial political debate — for different constituencies. For example, perhaps a politically conservative, religious audience might appreciate the importance of good science education through the lens of its importance to the economy or national security.

Another break in the circle is to help teachers learn how to teach science in context more effectively. I often find that simply acknowledging the ethical or religious issue relaxes students; a few others  have explored approaches for better integration of these issues.

In my cell biology course, we investigate the biology and chemistry of a cell surface receptor that helps induce good feelings in us when it binds to a chemical compound found in incense; this may help explain why so many different cultures and religions have independently evolved the use of incense in their ceremonies and rituals.

We discuss the detailed cellular and molecular biology of the research in the context of ritual; the students report this opens a door that’s usually closed between those two sides of their minds. Religious students, who say they often feel their beliefs are ignored or belittled on campus, find this discussion especially welcome and thought-provoking.

High school educators in Wisconsin showed that students who read original texts from Darwin and intelligent-design scholars, and discussing those texts, critically learned evolution better (without rejection of other worldviews) than those taught it in the traditional didactic manner. Teaching potentially controversial science can work if done in an interactive, engaging fashion and in a rich historical and societal context.

Clearly, there are a multitude of reasons for America’s polarized politics and decreasing science literacy and innovation that go beyond just teaching science better. But sometimes a little creative wrestling with and engagement in systems and programs that already exist can make a difference.

Once I offered the opportunity for anyone in the cell biology course to simultaneously take a seminar course focusing on the societal and ethical implications of the biology discussed in the cell course. Half the biology class wanted to enroll in the seminar.

A dozen students — all future scientists and health care workers — wound up in the course, representing seven different religions and traditions, from Christianity to Jainism to Judaism.

Students were amazed so many of their peers took religion seriously, and those students tell me that the conversations and debates we had in the course, together with the seminar, resonate to this day. Many say science is now woven together with ethics and religion in their minds; they can’t think about biology without thinking about its meaning in the greater context.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arri Eisen.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Culture & Science • Education • Opinion

soundoff (2,297 Responses)
  1. Pedro

    Q. What does religion have to do with my cell bio course? A. NOTHING. Save politics for political courses. There are no shortage of courses dealing with social issues, philosophy, religion..etc. As a prof you are not doing anyone a disservice by sticking to the subject matter.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:57 am |
    • Craig Davison

      Well put Pedro. If I were in this professor's class, the first question I'd have for him is, "will creationism be on the exam?" And if he said no, that's when I'd either tune him out, or excuse myself from lecture. This professor needs to focus on the material. He should have his hands full with jak/stat receptor mediated pathways, electron transport chains, and the Kreb cycle. Everything else would be a waste of my time and energy.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:16 am |
  2. Rim

    Science and Religion can co-exist on some levels but 'proven facts' doesn't happen to be one of those levels.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:50 am |
  3. Herby Sagues

    I fully agree. But only if we include the ancient Greek gods, the romans, the book of the dead and the nordic gods, as they are exactly as valid to science as judaism or christianism.
    Seriously, teaching ethics would make sense. Teaching religion in science classes would be the beginning of the end of rational thinking and the collapse of this country into the dark ages.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:38 am |
  4. Terri

    As a religious person who did a bachelor of science in genetics I totally understand what he is saying. I have had many debates at university as to how religion and science can actually, and do actually, co-exist. I think we are all looking to deep into what religion, when it is more meant as a broad scope of faiths....it can be any faith you choose, flying spaghetti included, he means how do the gaps in science, in evolution, coincide with the idea of religion, does the facts of science totally discredit religion etc...so not a specific faith but rather the idea of religion. At least that was how I took what he was saying.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:35 am |
    • Chris L.

      I understand your argument. Math and music intertwine to a pretty large extent. That doesn't mean subject matter should exchanged betwixt the two.

      Create a separate class to explore any perceived shared elements. Like musical math, a good eighty to ninety percent simply don't know or care.

      December 16, 2011 at 9:53 am |
  5. AtheistSteve

    Sigh..........Christopher Hitchens just died and the world just got a little bit dumber.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:31 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      We have lost a great man. “Do I fear death? No, I am not afraid of being dead because there's nothing to be afraid of, I won't know it. I fear dying, of dying I feel a sense of waste about it and I fear a sordid death, where I am incapacitated or imbecilic at the end which isn't something to be afraid of, it's something to be terrified of.”
      ― Christopher Hitchens.

      He spoke for how a great many of is feel.

      RIP Christopher...your voice will be missed

      December 16, 2011 at 4:37 am |
    • Mirosal

      We still have Richard Dawkins. But, I'm waiting for someone to issue a fatwa against him. RIP Mr. Hitchens.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:22 am |
  6. Chris L.

    I'm all for teaching religion in science class. Teach how it has no evidence to support it, and that it wholly fails to meet the burden of proof that it must in order to be taken seriously. Use it as a teachable moment, and explain the dangers of cults and gullibility. Point out that there is precisely as much evidence for gods, angels, and daemons as there is for ghosts, deranged lizard-kings, and Robot Obama.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:25 am |
  7. Mr.Butters

    Only if you teach History in Religion. Teach about Christmas Trees, Wreaths, Easter bunnies. Actually educate people on how much of modern Christianity was influenced in an attempt to sway pagans.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:24 am |
  8. Chris L.

    I demand equal time for those of us who worship The Norse Gods. I fully expect science classes to teach that the Earth (Midgard) was made from the body of a giant who fell in battle to mighty Thor.

    I also expect Tyr's Day (Tuesday) Thor's Day (Thursday) And Freya's Day (Friday) begin with a moment of silence to thank those gods for their heroic deeds.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:14 am |
  9. The Truth

    Religion is a philosophy and not a science because it has more to do with feelings than a rock being made up of granite. If you teach religion in schools then teach children about all of them. Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Wicca, Satan worship, The Force, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc etc. Positives and negatives of all.

    December 16, 2011 at 4:00 am |
    • Craig Davison

      Truth – don't get me wrong; overall I agree with you. But philosophy is not really like religion. They are quite different. Philosophy is based logic. Religion is based on belief. While philosophy may assume into evidence aspects that are solely theoretical, these aspects must withstand a litmus test of scrutiny, based on logic algorithms. Religion, does not require logic; it requires faith.

      And not so far from the paradigm of faith are the most theoretical of scientific principles, such as string theory, which is currently theoretical, not empirical. While math, and quantum physics have successfully predicted outcomes, years later when technology made the testing of such ideas testable, many concepts still lack physical proof, such as string theory, which has a lot of supporters, but no physical evidence. In lieu of empirical evidence, some would call this a sort of belief system.

      And as our understanding of the physical world grown, ideas often sit perched on the mountain of philosophy, such that science, with enough time and effort can most likely tell us how, but it cannot tell us why. Which is most likely in the purview of philosophy and perhaps religion (if that is how you work with things that are unknowable).

      December 16, 2011 at 4:13 am |
    • Andrew

      Craig, I think you overstate the acceptance of string theory among physicists. There are very few non-string theorist physicists who regard string theory as anything other than science fiction right now. It's not even the only model of quantum gravity either (There's also loop quantum gravity, for example). I'd argue it's more of a mathematical theory than any semblance of a scientific one. Without testable predictions, it really doesn't carry much value in physics.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:26 am |
    • SonOfSteel

      Well said!
      de-feent de-feirn de-feenty feirn. (means 'oo-rah' in Norse, so I'm told)

      December 16, 2011 at 4:29 am |
    • Craig Davison

      Andrew, I'm well aware of the dearth of empirical data for M-theory. It is essentially a fine mathematical model that happens to fit. And as you know, mathematical models, such as those in quantum physics predicted physical observations well before technology was able to demonstrate those concepts empirically.

      But please enlighten me. If not M-Theory, which is the most accepted proposed unifying theory out there?

      December 16, 2011 at 5:03 am |
    • Craig Davison

      Andrew – And by the way, how and where did I overstate M-theory's acceptance in the scientific community? The reason I used it as an example was to draw a similarity between the absence of its empirical evidence, and belief systems in religion. Neither has a means to test them at the moment. Although, one is base at least on a math model.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:10 am |
    • HellBent

      " Neither has a means to test them at the moment."

      That implies that there will ever be a means to test religion – what type of test would you envision?

      December 16, 2011 at 5:12 am |
    • Andrew

      I believe you overstated the case by saying "many concepts still lack physical proof, such as string theory, which has a lot of supporters", I'd shy from saying there are a lot of people in the physics community who support string theory. There are plenty of string theorists who like to popularize their work, like Brian Greene, but that doesn't mean it has much widespread acceptance at all within the community.

      Saying "it has lots of supporters" make it sound like physicists believe it more than they in fact do. As for what other theories, as I stated, loop quantum gravity is just as viable, though seldom as discussed.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:34 am |
    • Andrew

      Not to say loop quantum gravity is more widely accepted, it's just there's so little information, and so many radically different proposals, that it's difficult for the community to really agree on ANY quantum gravity model as being viable.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:36 am |
    • Craig Davison

      hellbent – Stating that at the moment neither is testable is a fact, not an implication. You are making an inference that was not remotely suggested in my bulk of my text. What I am suggesting is that M-Theory may in time be testable. Please reread my words at your convenience to confirm this.

      On testing for God... I guess that would depend on how we define God. If for example in time our definition of a God transitioned, as has occurred in history. Such that perhaps we may come to see God as a creator of all we behold, via methods not yet fully understood by us yet, such as a master programmer of a hologram, etc.. If that change were to happen, it may be possible that such a creator my have left behind an artifacts of a physical nature, which may be divined in testable experiment. (Excuse the pun.) One has to keep an open mind about things.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:40 am |
    • Craig Davison

      Andrew – Supply me with an article that suggest a largely unpopular M-theory... otherwise is no reason to shy away from a model that has strong math underpinnings. Remaining skeptical is not the same as rejecting an idea, that contains workable math, yet lacks a technical means to test it. For example, many of Einsteins posits were not testable when he deduced them, but we didn't reject them based on that the idea that they were not fully testable at the time. Or for that matter, Niels Bohr's quantized atomic model.

      December 16, 2011 at 5:48 am |
    • Andrew

      "The Unraveling of String Theory", by Time is a decent laymen directed article which hints that string theory isn't a big darling among the physics community. I'm not able to comment on the math myself, but I'm even skeptical there as to how well it describes the universe, I've heard it still does require a lot of mathematic gymnastics. (And by 'I've heard', I mean, 'grad students and professors love to make fun of it during labs')

      Einstein's theories weren't immediately testable, but they didn't have nearly as complex or hard to justify mathematics... most of it had been formulated before Einstein, it hardly seemed ad hoc. And again, with Einstein, you had robust predictions which were likely obtainable with limited alternatives. With string theory, alternatives exist, you have infinitely more complex mathematics, and no conceivable test of it yet that don't really also work for alternate explanations. It's certainly not as well founded as GR was in 1915.

      December 16, 2011 at 6:10 am |
    • Craig Davison

      Good article, thanks.

      Okay, as I understand M-theory it describes a mechanism for unifying the four different forces in nature, which had been so distinct as to obscure how they would act together to form our physical universe. The search for a unifying theory is an old one; and a worthy effort. As I understand the complexity is that is observed in M-theory, it is a type of anthropic reasoning allows for variation. Such that an underlying principle presupposes that other universes, and dimensions, may exist, where differences are allowable. So what we see is a mathematical model that describes a universal mechanism that not only explains our universe, and our ostensibly observable dimensions, but also describes other dimensions, and other universes with variable physical laws.

      Like you, I don't possess the a substantial enough math background to discuss it on a more meaningful level. But as I've been trying to convey, and rather poorly I think, there is a reason to be skeptical, in lieu of empirical evidence. But it's still the best idea out there. Science has a history of proceeding on incorrect assumption that are corrected over time. In the worst case scenario, we are being completely mislead in a direction that takes us from the truth. But I would say, that given the elegance of the math, if the answer string theory provides is not completely correct, it is surely in the right neighborhood. And worthy of our attention, at least until something better comes along.

      As far as Einstein's proposals, they did not, and do not have a different means test. They must be provable empirically or they'd remain mathematical curiosities, rather than meaningful descriptions of the physical universe, regardless of their complexity. And, when you consider that the full complexity of his ideas were and are well beyond the grasp of most people, and received their fair share of criticism of the day. In fact he was wrong on several occasions, and revamped his ideas. But science moves forward; and the scientific method is designed not to prove something right, but rather to try to prove it wrong. That makes sense, right?

      Again, as I stated early on, there is an element of faith in this scientific endeavor.

      Either way, it's very cool to exchange ideas with you... it's much appreciated. At least we're not at odds over creationism versus evolution. Have a great weekend! 🙂

      December 16, 2011 at 6:49 am |
  10. Revelati

    Whose religion are we talking about teaching? It is hard enough to teach science in science class, let alone try and mesh that with every major religion, and what about minor religions? What if someone believes that flying spaghetti monsters pooped out giant meatballs to create the universe? Unless you want a lawsuit from scientologists you would have to include the dark lord Xenophon in your next textbook. Why even go there?

    December 16, 2011 at 3:56 am |
    • Notoj

      Exactly. There are tonnes of religions and according to the followers they are all correct. The flying spaghetti man is also a religion. Reincarnation is a part of many religions. To pick one is to discriminate against others and of course prove which religion is correct.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:14 am |
  11. pubturtle

    If a student cannot see science all around them, then that is the fault of one of two things. First, poor instruction. Second religion. Religion blinds children to science by taking credit for the natural world. Obviously, a child that has grown up learning that god made the world the way that it is in seven days and that everything is part of a divine plan, is going to be less interested in discovering how things came to be and how they work. How one could think that adding religion to the science classroom will do anything other than compound this problem is flabbergasting.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:56 am |
  12. Lydia

    It seems to me that most of the people commenting did not read the article thoroughly. Dr.Eisen is not advocating "teaching" religion – only allowing students (and teachers) to think and talk openly about the religious/ethical implications or consequences of science. He probably should have left out the word religion since it's such a red flag and used only ethics.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:55 am |
    • Herby Sagues

      I don't think many science teachers do anything currently to stop that discussion. If someone in a science class asks about how it relates to creationism, the teacher will rarely say "we don't talk about that". He or she will say how rock testing and tons of other methods show that te earth is about four billion years old, how evolution has been observed at different levels and corroborated at many and how most of the claims of creationism are inconsistent with measurement and observation.
      Teachers that don't do that already would likely be the wrong people to actually be introducing that discussion in the classroom.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:45 am |
  13. Shawn Irwin

    Maybe the churches should start teaching evolution too . . .

    December 16, 2011 at 3:53 am |
  14. Gumpsion

    NO, NO, No. Whether one is talking about the DNA of a human or a protozoan, it's compelling not to believe that an intelligence
    did not have 'a hand in all of this,' BUT LEAVE THE RELIGION to ONE'S PLACE OF WORSHIP., it doesn't belong within the public classroom. Who's version of religion are you going to ' dish?" Besides public teachers don't have enough time to
    teach the subject matter. ETHICS, now that's a diff issue.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:49 am |
  15. Chase

    I understand what you're getting at and I also understand why you think this is a good idea. The problem is that fundamentally science cannot support any religious argument. The scientific method (which all modern science is based on) can't support religion because there is no concrete evidence for the existence of a god or of a singular creation of life. There is also the problem of overlap, or the lack thereof. All major world religions source material far predates the scientific method, in fact most by over a thousand years. When you drag ethics into the equation it gets even more convoluted. Many believe it's unethical to teach or force religion upon people who are too young to truly understand the ramifications and consequences it will have on their lives. All major religions are inherently unethical, prejudiced and hypocritical as organizations even if some of their individual members are not. Injecting religious talk into the classroom will not make controversial subjects any less polarizing, and it will not improve the quality of education in the United States (or anywhere for that matter).

    December 16, 2011 at 3:42 am |
    • Nick

      all i gotta say is when i was a little boy i loved dinosaurs evolution was thought as a obvious thing to me i questioned why others didnt think this way. why could pokemon evolve and not animals you know? but i also was raised christian not that strict my my mum read me the bible. i always thought the beginning sounded like the big bang how there was nothing then he said let there be light and the planets formation and how the animals came from less advance and we were last. why cant it just be an opinion just like politics?

      December 16, 2011 at 3:53 am |
    • Jorge

      Maybe you all should think that everyone wants to compete on science, here is the hug problem, when we talk about science we are not really talking about actuall science, they are talking about evolution, a belief system that has not be proven at all, evan history they are more holes in theory that people want to report. the mother of modern science is the christians faith, this is not just belief, you need basic ideas or concrete ideas to develop and observe the science process, we have laws of how to look at things from scientific approah, science was seeing not againts religion, but Since God created all things, we wanted to learn how He created these things, what we have is people just coming to process already having a problem with the idea that they is a God who is and they will do anything to proven that He does not who He is, what is attemp they have problem with God that will hold them responsible for doing what is right or wrong, since they is no God, then we are free to do what we want, and I am my own master, this is why our society is paying for fruits of so call, science approach. lets stop using word Science to preach Evolution, and let us get back to SCIENCE As it is. Science cannot prove they is God, but it cannot disprove that they is not a God,

      December 16, 2011 at 4:22 am |
    • Andrew

      Jorge, what evidence could I provide for you that would convince you of the veracity of evolution? Also, what are these 'holes' you speak of, and why do they invalidate the theory?

      I ask because holes don't invalidate scientific theories, 'holes' are also known as 'areas of future research and study, as we do not currently know everything'. What you REALLY need to care about is contradictions, observations which do not conform to predictions made by the theory. For this, you need something akin to a pre-cambrian bunny rabbit, or a species which is genetically similar to something like a fish, yet has more endogenous retro viral markers in common with a dog.

      Science loves holes, but loathes contradictions. But even contradictions are not necessarily enough to cause you to throw out entire theories, even if they are rather major contradictions. There's the famous "quantum mechanics just does not mesh with general relativity" example in physics, yet quantum field theory and the general theory of relativity are virtually unshakable because of the empirical support, even with a huge contradiction built in.

      So what shows evolution to be wrong? What contradictory observations are there? What massive holes that threaten the integrity of the entire theory exist? And further, what education do you have on the subject? What makes you any more able to comment on the veracity of evolution than you are to tell a neurosurgeon how to remove a brain tumor?

      PS. Science can also not prove there are no unicorns, does that mean we should believe in unicorns?

      December 16, 2011 at 4:33 am |
  16. Rofl


    December 16, 2011 at 3:41 am |
  17. ryan evans

    You should really ask for a refund for that degree.

    I could write an exhaustively thorough list of the things you know on the back of a business card with a crayon.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:41 am |
  18. SixDegrees

    How about teaching religion in comparative religion classes? Keep it out of the science classroom – open that door, and every scrap of rational thought will be shoved aside as the Baptist evangelicals sweep in and fill it with blather.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:38 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      My daughter who was raised with pagan beliefs will be taking comparative religions next semester...a great chance to open her eyes and the eyes of anyone to what others believe. It should make for some interesting debates between her and her fundie friend who believes that anyone who doesn't follow the buybull's every word will go to hell.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:51 am |
  19. Observation

    Yeah, this would do wonders for our science literacy. Let's make everyone feel welcome, who cares what the facts are.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:38 am |
  20. Chris L.

    While we're at it, lets teach philosophy in math, and interpretive dance in English.

    Or we could, you know... just teach the appropriate subjects while leaving the fairy-tales and nonsense for free time.

    December 16, 2011 at 3:36 am |
    • truth and freedom

      Yeah I love fairy tales. Have you heard the one about the monkey that turns into a man?

      December 16, 2011 at 3:49 am |
    • Chris L.

      You've demonstrated your ignorance more thoroughly than I possibly could have. Well played, sir.

      Keep sacrificing lambs to Jehova. You'll get a cookie as a reward when you reach Sto-Vo-Kor.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:08 am |
    • Fairy tales?

      Hey I saw that you love fairy tales, I enjoy them also! You should try this book, I think it's called the Bible. It has loads of good ones in there for you.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:21 am |
    • Mr.Butters

      @truth and freedom

      No but I heard the one about the ape that evolved into one. Don't see the difference? That is why you fail.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:25 am |
    • Rim

      @truth Who is the lead person in charge here on Earth for you and your religious folk? Who ever it is that tells you their version of truth and facts is misinforming the sh$t out of you. Man and the common ape or chimpanzee evolved from a common ancestor. Even if your simplistic mind can't wrap its intelligence around that idea it may be easier for you to understand it in the sense that turning into something and evolving are two different things.

      December 16, 2011 at 4:37 am |
    • truth and freedom

      Hey atheists. Its dumb to make an argument out of the fact I used the word changed instead of evolved. I know how the theory goes I got As in all my history and biology classes. By the way Chris L. no one sacrifices sheep anymore and only one denomination calls God Jehovah. Whose the ignorant one here?

      So use the correct terminology, let me restate the questions.

      Have you ever seen an ape evolve into a man?

      December 16, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.