home
RSS
Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate the origins of life Tuesday at the Creation Museum.
February 3rd, 2014
01:15 PM ET

Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Editors note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be livestreamed at CNN.com at 7 pm ET, and Piers Morgan Live will interview Ham and Nye on Tuesday at 9 ET.

WATCH TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html

Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN

(CNN) - Public debates on evolution and creation have become increasingly rare. Several hundred well-attended debates were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades.

So I look forward to a spirited yet cordial debate on Tuesday with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of television fame.

I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution.

Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.

As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience.

He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills.

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm Debating Ken Ham 

Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them.

Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.

Nye, the host of a popular TV program for children, should welcome a scrutiny of evolution in the classrooms.

As evolution-creation issues continue to be in the news - whether it relates to textbook controversies or our debate - there is an increasingly bright spotlight on the research activities of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide who have earned doctorates and are creationists.

On our full-time staff at Answers in Genesis, we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine. Yes, creationists are still a small minority in the scientific community, but they hold impressive credentials and have made valuable contributions in science and engineering.

I remember the time I spoke at a lunchtime Bible study at the Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington. I was thrilled to meet several scientists and engineers who accept the book of Genesis as historical and reject Darwinian evolution. They shared with me that a belief in evolution had nothing to do with their work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Why should our perspective about origins be censored?

Our young people and adults should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution.

It’s an important debate, for what you think about your origins will largely form your worldview. If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.

Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority our infallible creator and his word, the Bible over the words of fallible humans.

Ken Ham is founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis (USA) and founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Ham.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture wars • Evolution • Opinion • Science

soundoff (4,336 Responses)
  1. Engineer in Raleigh

    I believe that all plants and animals were pooed out of a giant space chihuahua, yet they refuse to teach that in high school biology. WHY ARE MY VIEWS BEING CENSORED?

    February 4, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      Because it was really a doberhuahua.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • Snow

      You keep quiet. I am talking about a much more important thing here.. I follow the peaceful tree hugging religion of east Antarctica called "Jumbalakakakmakhainakeuwahahahaahahah". Why isn't my beliefs taught in public schools? Why are they censoring me? Ahh the persecution.. PERSECUTION, I tell you!!!

      February 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • Barcs

      I demand that Satanism be taught in science class!!!!

      February 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
  2. Anonymous

    The author is not debating the issue in this article– he is asking for mutual respect and consideration of both opinions. It always seems to be the people who preach tolerance who are the most intolerant.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • Steel On Target

      Like Jesus Christ and the god of Abraham?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • Frank

      So it would be tolerant to debate Hitler about the need to wipe the Jews off the face of the planet because his worldview is just as valid as ours right?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
    • Anonymous

      Your arguments are irrelevant. There is a moral right and a moral wrong– and virtually everybody will argue that Hitler was morally wrong. Science/ Creation is not a moral issue (maybe for some people...) but people should be able to respectfully converse about their convicitons.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • Frank

        That is it my friend, YOUR CONVICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANYONE BUT YOURSELF

        February 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Anonymous

          In this case, as this debate is about ALL of creation, both of these men have convicitons that apply to everyone and everything. They both deserve to be listened to.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • Frank

          Again, Hitler had some grand ideas about origins and pushing his worldview on others, how well did that turn out?

          February 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Anonymous

          No need to bring up Hitler anymore. that is what you call a Red Herring argument– it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
      • Barcs

        Exactly. Respectfully converse, rather than tell people that science is wrong without doing an ounce of research on it. That's just intellectual dishonesty.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • Anonymous

      I'm fortunate to have gone to a college that taught me how to listen to and respect people who have different beliefs than me. That doesn't mean that I have to let go of my own convictions, but I can listen and learn and consider and have CONVERSATIONS. It's so disappointing for me to read these comments and see that that is not the case for most people.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
  3. Judy Wood

    Bill Nye is about to have a battle of wits against an unarmed man.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • Eric D

      And what about all these people who held a belief in God, and likely creation:

      Kepler, Bacon, Descartes (I think, therefore I am), Pascal, Newton, Maclaurin, Bernoulli, Galvani, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Kelvin, Marconi, Carver, Planck, Heisenberg, Von Braun, and Pollard (Manhattan Project).

      Were they as stupid as you claim Mr. Haim to be?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • Greg Sr.

      Judy...we Believers see that the other way around...of course! It's like going to a gunfight with a knife. We believe our God is bigger than all the secular or naturalistic thinking that man can invent to try and explain away their responsibility to bow and submit to their Creator. He will have the final say over everybody....and belief in that is not required on our part. It is, however, strongly encouraged by that same loving God...who gave His own Son as the perfect sacrifice for all of us. Our part is only to believe and trust in Him. All of us know that in our heart of hearts. Sadly, most are still too proud and will reject the truth. What a tragedy. Jeus loves you....please don't turn Him away!

      February 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
  4. Barcs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo5MdHMNcw

    This pretty much covers everything. This is why people laugh at creationists. Now this video is compilation of a 40 part video series debunking creation claims. If you'd rather watch one part at a time, you can do that as well. Just watch them one at a time at your leisure and it becomes apparent the misunderstandings and lies these guys claim about science.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • Hehleyum

      I am laughing at this video. Who's the teenager this video is trying to debunk? Who cares about what that kid has to say. I am truly confused.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • Barcs

        At the beginning it was VenomfangX, who used to be the most popular creationist/science denier, on youtube. He makes claims that are similar to a lot of folks on this blog (the ignorant ones).

        February 4, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
  5. Slippery Joe

    Why would Bill do this? It's like arguing with a brick.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • Steel On Target

      Because when somebody stands up in public and tries to tell everyone creationism is true and should be taught in schools, somebody has to show up to remind the idiotic Americans why that shouldn't be the case. Otherwise things will only get worse.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • tony

        Not if totally ignoring them works better

        February 4, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
  6. Plato

    I feel sorry for Ken Ham. If the best he must regarding the debate is to question the discussion around Creationism in a science class and engage in essentially an ad hominem attack, couched in a straw man argument – "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans." the Bill Nye should have no problem making Ken look silly.

    Creationism has no more business in a science class room as physics has in the confessional. Ultimately faith is...well faith. You either have or you don't and debating faith based beliefs is an oxymoron. Faith is not based on logic or something that can be debated or argued. I suppose it may make for good theatre – but the public would probably prefer watching Nancy Grace instead of debating grace.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
  7. JohnAdams

    " Why should our [creationist] perspective about origins be censored?"

    (1) No one is censoring it.

    (2) It is ridiculous to assert it is historically-accurate.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • Jahtez

      He wants to teach his religion in public schools. That's not allowed (mostly). That's the ONLY reason he feels he's being "censored".

      February 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
    • KnightofMalta

      I once had an evolutionist tell me.

      "Creationists are ridiculous, they believe in talking animals in the Bible. That is what insane people do, hear things talk that they shouldn't."

      I replied, "Atheistic evolutionists also talk about stuff insane people see. Like monkeys turning to men, lest of all animals talking (since you believe we are the same as those animals). So before you decide how insane creationists are, first decide what insanity is."

      February 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
      • Barcs

        And, this is why nobody takes creationists seriously anymore. Your entire post is laughable.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
  8. Common Sense

    to explain how evolution created man is akin to having a tornado rip through a junk yard and manufacture a 747. No difference....unless you put a Designer in the mix, the chance of life happening any other way is infinitesimal...sorry

    February 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • Frank

      Only because you have no basic understanding of biology, chemistry, or critical thinking.

      Its ok to believe something because you wore told to, right up until the point that you want to start pushing your worldview on others because it is the only truth and you know that to be fact based on your faith in less than 60 year old rantings of an Austrailian that was "Called by God" to serve in America(btw his country doesn't have a creationist faction)

      February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • Snow

      so your answer is god snapped his fingers and made it happen?

      First off, do you even know the difference between an organic living thing and an inanimate non-living thing?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
      • Common Sense

        my illustration had to do with probability and chance, I cant believe I have to explain it to you, but alas, I do.....

        February 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Will you be explaining it soon?

          February 4, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
    • epoxide

      You should at least attempt to achieve even the most basic understanding of evolutionary theory before you dismiss it as being invalid. It is clear that you don't have a clue what evolution even is.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • michaellocher

      The "747 analogy" is an incredibly inadequate one to anyone who has even the slimmest knowledge of biology and chemistry, let alone a little common sense.

      Moreover, if you're going to play the "common sense" or logic card, you've got to acknowledge that it's intellectually inappropriate to simply plug the magical answer of your choosing into any areas where rigorous investigation have failed to supply complete answers (yet).

      February 4, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • visitor

      I am sure an airplane would seem magical to someone in Abraham's time. But it is just, an airplane. A complicated machine with wondrous engineering, but not magic, and the "formula" certainly wasn't written down in a religious text.

      Why do you think we as a species are supposed to know everything, now? Isn't that arrogant?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
    • Barcs

      Could you please source me the mathematical formulas you used to compile the tornado through junkyard scenerio. By all means, share your research. Oh wait, you haven't research a single thing. You read it on a dishonest creationist website and think it's automatically true. BREAK THE CYCLE OF IGNORANCE PEOPLE! PLEASE! Do some research for yourself instead of blindly follow everyone that goes with your worldview. The whole tornado argument is so laughably wrong and is just something creationists made up to make evolution seem improbable. Ham is a liar and by following him you are breaking one of the ten commandments. I guess your religion isn't so literal after all.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
  9. Dan Z.

    I fail to see how the supposed "fallibility" of the theory of evolution somehow strengthens the creationist argument. You don't just go writing "god" in the blanks!

    February 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
  10. Anna

    How can the Bible be infallible if it was written by fallible humans? Isn't that an oxymoron?

    February 4, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • kyzaadrao

      I've seen many atheists that believe their opinions are infallible when discussing theory.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
      • epoxide

        Which only says something about the atheists themselves, NOT the theories they were arguing for.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • michaellocher

        It doesn't matter what your atheist friends might have said to you. Science, by it's very nature, isn't dogmatic. If you doubt that, compare science textbooks from 1920, 1950, 1980, and 2000. By its very nature, science is constantly correcting, evolving, challenging itself.

        Religion, by contrast, is dogmatic by definition.

        Don't forget it.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • Snow

        Usually they are accepting to logical deductions.. if you encounter radical atheists, that is another matter. Talking to them is like talking to creationists, no difference.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • Anna

        You didn't answer the question...how can the Bible be infallible if it was written by fallible humans? I'm not claiming to be either Christian or atheist, only challenging this man's opinion. Why are we supposed to follow only parts of the Bible, but not the parts about keeping slaves and such? If the Bible is infallible, then who is man to say that the Bible is wrong?

        February 4, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
    • Barcs

      Because the humans that wrote it were inspired by god, duh! Oh, how do I know this? Well it says it in the bibical! Yeeeehaw! Slam dunk for creationism! Evolution is a lie!!!! 😆

      Seriously I can't believe people still deny science in 2014. C'mon people! Use some scrutiny and critical thinking.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
  11. Happy Atheist

    To teach creationism along side evolution is like teaching astrology along side astronomy.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • steelerguin

      Your right those non-creationist are akin to astrologers.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
      • Snow

        Haha.. good joke.. but we both know who the astrologers are actually like. Working with astrology requires blind belief in the random rules and their absolute infallible truth. Sound familiar?

        February 4, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
  12. michaellocher

    If Ken Ham and his ilk claim to honor science, why is their response – when faced with the inevitable gaps and ambiguities in a complex scientific theory like the evolution of species, or the origin of life – to turn to a 3000-year-old oral tradition for a nomadic desert tribe's best guess?

    I'm pretty sure the ancient Hebrews didn't have access to radio spectroscopy.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
  13. Natalie

    I don't feel there is the need for teaching creationism in schools. It's not factual and has no actual evidence or support outside of the poorly constructed bible. If parents want their children to know about creationism, then that's their responsibility to lie to their children.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
  14. Eric

    The last line sums up exactly why I find religious debates so perplexing. Especially, in the case of creationism...

    "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans."

    How can he trust a book that was written and translated by infallible humans thousands of years ago about events that happened before any humans supposedly existed, yet he can't trust the scientists of today who have at their disposal all of the research technology he was just praising?

    February 4, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • michaellocher

      Well, for what it's worth, Eric – the self-confirming notion favored by the particularly devout is that those ancient texts are literally, and through supernatural means, anointed and confirmed by their deity. The claim, I understand, is that "he" has guided the editing and stewardship of the Bible and related texts.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • JohnC

      yes, I figure even if from God it was put into a human language and read by humans. Human languages rely massively on context so much so that even lawyers and engineers struggle to make their meaning clear. The Bible is written in styles ranging from odd poetry to boring history. The context of those that wrote and original heard the word is quite different than today let alone the translations and such. One could say "yes, but God inspires to ensure it's understood", but then why are there very studious, prayerful, sincere people that still disagree on interpretation. Clearly there was no full proof mechanism in place to ensure against misinterpretation. Then there's the question of whether those humans selected the correct books. Too much guessing to pin so much on.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • Eric

        Well stated JohnC. I might have to frame that.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • Madtown

      Yep, amazing irony.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
    • Eric

      I should correct my English too... I wrote "infallible human" when I really meant "fallible humans" as Ken said. But it looks like you guys understand what I was trying to say.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
  15. basketcase

    "But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory."

    Couldn't be more wrong. Evolution can be (and is) tested in a laboratory. Oh, and I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but a PhD isn't considered "impressive credentials" within the scientific community. It's more like the entry point.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @basketcase : Couldn't be more wrong. Evolution can be (and is) tested in a laboratory.

      Scientific experimentation is based upon repeatability. How would you propose to test a historical event with repeatability?

         <><

      February 4, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • epoxide

        Because evolution still occurs today, and can be observed in a controlled environment.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
      • Frank

        L4H how much do you get paid per post?

        February 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
  16. ego_death

    So creationism has its origins from the bible correct. Now lets determine where the bible came from and why it has scientific merit since in now way could any translation be incorrect and no human judgement was used to determine what books would be included in it.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • JohnC

      If in the 3rd century when they decided which books to include in the Bible they had a vote straight off (no discussion) and 100% of a large group wrote down the exact same list THEN I would be impressed and at least consider they were divinely inspired. Debating about which to include though sounds way more like human thinking.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @JohnC : If in the 3rd century when they decided which books to include in the Bible they had a vote straight off (no discussion) and 100% of a large group wrote down the exact same list

        What if one were to take multiple lists (i.e. recognized as divinely inspired) and compile each of them into a single list (with every book included)? In fact, this is what WAS done. While some lists included some of the NT and others included different parts of the NT, none of them included a book that was not included in one or more of the lists.

           <><

        February 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Anonymouse

          No, it wasn't. But you already knew that.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • JohnC

          I'll have to re-read my history. I thought their were some books proposed that were rejected. At any rate one has to ask why they didn't all come with the exact same complete list if divinely inspired.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
  17. Susan StoHelit

    I don't see the debate here. To debate, you have to agree on the nature of reality – if I say that coins come from magic, and you say they come from a machine at the mint, and I say before the debate that the facts don't matter, I choose to believe that magic is real and the only creator of coins – why would you debate me? I've already said I don't care about reality, I've got the conclusion I want to believe, and I'll believe it regardless.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
    • luvUamerica

      Excellent point. What is in the Bible, and other religious texts, including the various versions and styles of the bible are based on faith alone and not reality. I am Christian, but because I am brown skinned Indian, I am always mistaken for someone of another faith. While at a restaurant with my family, I had another family talk loudly so I could hear – "Now they would think umbrellas would be rowing out of their behinds". The thing is, if I believe in it strongly, why not?

      I am also a scientist, and in my world there is a clear distinction between science which is based on reality, and religion which is based on faith. Science is not all true because some hypothesis can be disproved if the experiments don't work out, but religion is all true, even if it is unexperimental and cannot be applied in real world.

      Reality and faith and not mutually exclusive, and are not dependent on each other. Arguing with a scientist, you always have some factual information to fall back on. When you argue with a theologist, you will only go in circles.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • Bart

        "Reality and faith and not mutually exclusive" – yes! "but religion is all true" – what?!? This is what leads to war, when your truth and mine disagree...! Put your two statements together, and you must conclude that where reality and faith do not agree, then it is reality that is false. (as you said religion is all true...) I think it makes far more sense to say religion is what you firmly believe to be true but cannot prove – which is essentially what you said in the rest of your post – but I even question aspects of my Christian teachings that don't square with the rest of my scientific education and life experiences. I don't simply believe that my faith is "all true".

        February 4, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
  18. Bob

    "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans".

    UUUMMMMM.. Didn't humans write the Bible and make changes to it over the years? I assume those humans are also fallible. That is the problem with religion. It is run by humans (of which many are trying to make a living and receive money). There have also been more people killed in the name of religion then by any other means. Also, between Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam – each of which is about 1/3 of the religious believers in the world +/- which one is right? That means that 2/3's of the religious people in the world are wrong....makes you think. The only reason most people believe in a religion is because their families, or culture does.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
    • Common Sense

      I did not grow up Christian. At the age of 28 years old, I was confronted with the life of Jesus......His death, burial, and resurrection....I have not been the same since. I am a college graduate (with high honors), have a successful business, raised a family, and trust the truths of Jesus Christ. I have also learned that until one is ready to put aside their pride, and humble themselves to His existence, and His demand for obedience, that person will repudiate and argue to his or her last breath there is no God....So, I encourage you to read the first 3 chapters of the Gospel of John.......

      February 4, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Madtown

        If it works for you, great. How can it be "truth", when it's not even available to many of your human brothers and sisters? Are you special?

        February 4, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Common Sense

          Read the second chapter of Romans.....that will help explain something to you......it begins like this: "for since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse".

          February 4, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • Madtown

          Read the second chapter of Romans
          ----
          That explains exactly nothing. Again, what if you had no access to christianity? If you don't, then what Romans says is irrelevant to you. If you have no access to christianity, then it can't possibly serve as "truth" for you. Many humans at this very moment have no access to christianity. Does God consider you more special than he considers them?

          February 4, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
  19. David

    It's 2014 and we are still having this debate. About a mystical book about fairy tails against science? Please! The Bible is a good book, I read it multiple times. It is primitive mans way to explain things he couldn't understand. The earth is 5000 years old? Science is based on facts that can be proven. The Bible is based on faith that can't be proven. End of debate, Science wins!

    February 4, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
  20. Primewonk

    "at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution."

    What problems? Creationists love to toss this out. Yet what they claim are "problems", only shows the profound depths of their scientific ignorance.

    February 4, 2014 at 3:42 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 45 46 47 48 49 50
Advertisement
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.