home
RSS
February 4th, 2014
10:05 PM ET

Creation debate recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - Did you miss the debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill "The Science Guy" Nye?

Don't worry, we've got you covered.

The debate was moderated by CNN's Tom Foreman, and, if there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's that he did a swell job.

Here's almost everything else you need to know, from Genesis to um, Revelation.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Evolution • Science • Uncategorized

soundoff (1,469 Responses)
  1. Will

    It is sad to see that people do not want to allow religion and science to exist simultaneously. Science defnitely cannot prove everything that exists or happens and scientific research is not the only way to find an answer. We don't primarily just use science in legal cases. There are many other forms of evidence to consider, not just scientific when you are trying to look at certain problems. This debate also was a philosophical debate so it is somewhat disingenious to think this was just science vs. religion. Both can coexist peacefully and in previous centuries they did. Even if Ken Ham cannot answer all of the questions satisfactorily because we cannot propose a scientific hypothesis and try to prove it, I think you seriously limit your options if you can only have science as your only source of witness and explanation of the universe. That position can be just as closed minded.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:32 am |
    • Jahtez

      I think they can co-exist. I just don't think any religion should be taught as fact. If one is going to teach creationism in school, they ALL must be taught; and there is a plethora of them to choose from.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:34 am |
      • tony

        leaving no time for actual educatiion

        February 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Jahtez

          Correct. Which is why it shouldn't be taught in public schools.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:46 am |
    • Science Works

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJB7gbjiJKw

      February 5, 2014 at 11:38 am |
  2. Nathan

    Pre-Big bang molecules?

    Wha?

    February 5, 2014 at 11:32 am |
  3. AB

    Religion gives answers. Science asks questions. If Creationism doesn't ask questions, it's not science.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:20 am |
    • dk

      Religion does not give answers, it medicates you.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:32 am |
  4. Reality #2

    Obviously, Mr. Ham has never visited a natural history museum.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:13 am |
    • Live4Him

      Obviously, you've never visited a creation museum.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • Rochester NY

        I wouldn't go to a Flat Earth Museum either.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
      • The Jackdaw

        Christian Museum = Building filled with stupid

        February 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        As an aside – after some 200 hours of examination under an electron microscope, researchers determined that the famous dino soft tissue is likely nothing more than 10,000 year old pond sc.um.
        Can you please stop flogging the poor, dead horse?

        Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms
        http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808

        February 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • tony

      Are there more than one?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:25 am |
  5. RK

    Everyone knows that man and dinosaurs lived in peaceful coexistence...LOL..

    February 5, 2014 at 11:07 am |
    • Madtown

      One of my favorite cartoons as a kid.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:10 am |
  6. Bilbo

    If you choose to believe if the fantastic, fine. But don't try to push it on others, especially children. When one accepts the fantastical as explanation for the way our world is, there will be no drive to continue investigating and striving to understand natural phenomena. Rather, there will only be the drive to convince others of their precious beliefs. Why do many religious folks need to be reinforced by knowing others believe as they do?

    February 5, 2014 at 11:02 am |
    • Joe

      I totally agree, but that goes the same way on the other side of the argument. We shouldn't force our children in schools to believe in the big bang theory.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:08 am |
      • Jahtez

        Science shouldn't be taught in school?

        February 5, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • tallulah13

        The Big Bang is the most likely correct answer when dealing with the origins of our universe, the one best supported by the available data. But I do agree that it is should be presented as best current explanation, not irrefutable fact. Kids should have a starting point when it comes to education. They should be taught why things are believed to be true and how that conclusion was arrived at. The should be given the tools to build upon what has been presented to them. Sadly, it seems that many believers lost the desire to learn after Sunday school, where they were taught that "cause the bible tells me so" was all the answer they'd ever need.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:19 am |
      • heehee

        There's good evidence for the big bang.

        The universe is expanding. It's been verified with literally thousands of measurements by hundreds of different scientists. You look at the galaxies and they're all moving away.

        The other piece of evidence is that there is radiation coming from all directions at the wavelength predicted by the theory.

        The details of how it happened and why are not clear, and that's why scientists are still collecting data and arguing about it. Might be worth knowing about.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:19 am |
      • tony

        But the big bang is taught as the latest discovered science – and with the proviso it will be updated as we llearn more.

        Religion is taught as ethernal, infallible (unquestionable) truth, whether it's obviously wrong or idiotic, or not

        February 5, 2014 at 11:22 am |
      • Bilbo

        The Big Bang Theory is not forced to be believed. It is presented as the best available theory as to how the universe was created based on scientific observation. There really is no "it goes both ways" when you look at the fantastical vs. theories developed by man based upon science. We present children the theories that can be supported by evidence because that fosters critical thought, whereas presenting children beliefs based upon faith alone serves only to provide opportunity to stunt that critical thought.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:32 am |
      • Joe A

        The Big Bang Theory was put forward by a Roman Catholic priest and Jesuit – George LeMaitre. It was Father LeMaitre who also predicted that scientists should see red shifts and helped to formulate Hubble's Law. Does that make it easier for you to teach that to school children?

        February 5, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • InsanityPrevails

      One of my old friends once told me, "Religion is like a d:-)k. It's great to have one, but don't wave it around in other people's faces. And whatever you do, don't go shoving it down our children's throats."

      February 5, 2014 at 11:20 am |
      • InsanityPrevails

        I believe that philosophy, silly as it may seem, ought to apply to just about everything: Christianity, other religions, Atheism, and secular topics as well.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:21 am |
  7. Skyler

    The concept of a god is the product of the human mind. That's the only place it lives. Life and plant species are the way they are today because all the other species mutations throughout the existence of our planet couldn't survive. Natural selection. There was a comment earlier in this forum that queried how matter could attain 'consciousness.' All matter is comprised of elements and various molecular compounds including organic compounds. From there, life sprung. At some point, a mutation on the DNA level allowed brain connections to become more sophisticated and numerous. This took millions and millions of years. But during that time, all the life forms that did not possess consciousness died off – they couldn't compete. Based on natural selection and the happenstance of variable environment factors that emerged on earth throughout history, we cannot NOT be who we are today: a highly evolved organism capable of profound thought, imagination and curiosity. A being capable of of writing what seemed at one time to be a definitive anthology of world and human history (the bible) before all the evidence was in (science).

    February 5, 2014 at 10:52 am |
    • Skyler

      Correction: 'All matter is comprised of elements that form various molecular compounds including organic compounds.'

      February 5, 2014 at 11:00 am |
    • Rob S

      "The concept of a god is the product of the human mind." Exactly! Science is also a product of the human mind. Both Creation and Evolution are true. God created the process of evolution. Creationists seek to limit God to the words in the Bible. If Genesis was written today it would incorporate evolution, such as: "In the beginning God created Strings from which everything else has evolved..." something along those lines. We, being human, are always playing catch-up, aren't we?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • Skyler

        Science is found outside the human mind. Everything in the universe is a subset of science, including the human mind, in which resides the concept of a god. Science > human > concept of a god. That's the progression.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
  8. Otis

    Mr. Ham offered very little to support creationism and just kept going back to the bible. He also went completely off-track when he started discussing gay marriage, abortion ans the route to salvation. He didn't even mention the Cambrian explosion of species which can put some doubts on the evolution theory. Mr. Nye on the other-hand offer very good arguments and was far better than I expected. Don't worry folks, we ain't all "ignerent" in Kentucky.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:51 am |
    • Doris

      I'm more worried about these charlatan scientists from Australia than anyone in Kentucky. Ham mentioned this Dr. Snelling at least a couple of times in the debate. Here's a "scientist" who got his credentials dating rocks at billions of years who supposedly believes in Creationism and is both "Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology" by the Institute for Creation Research in the USA, AND still called upon as a qualified geologist. Is it just all about the money??

      February 5, 2014 at 11:02 am |
      • tallulah13

        For some it really is just about the money.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • Otis

          You can go to their website now and for just $19.99 you can get a DVD of the "debate of the decade"!

          February 5, 2014 at 11:14 am |
      • Jeff

        Perhaps he can date rocks and still have a personal belief. Perhaps he views the days in Genesis as ages instead of literal days. Moreso, perhaps he isn't off his rocker or wrong just because while more credentialed on the subject than you (assumedly based on you not listing credentials), he doesn't share your opinion on the matter.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • Jahtez

          I don't know how effective a geologist can be when dating rocks he personally doesn't believe to be that old...I suppose as a professional, he can overcome personal beliefs to do his job.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:22 am |
      • Hugh Jass

        It is indeed all about the money, but whacky beliefs wouldn't stop him working as a geologist. A trained mechanic could repair a car even if he held a belief that cars were made directly by God instead of in factories.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:24 am |
  9. Charm Quark

    On one site that streamed the "debate", Christian today 91% agreed with Nye. Ham's fringe group is still enough to bring in enough cash to keep his version of the scam up and running, so sad.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:43 am |
    • cedar rapids

      Its up to 92% now

      February 5, 2014 at 10:51 am |
      • bob lob law

        that's just the reddit effect, I would not rely on the accuracy of that poll.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:06 am |
      • Ewo2

        Keep in mind that this is the internet. Those results most likely indicate that a group from outside of that community came in and messed with the poll numbers. I'm sure groups from both sides of the debate tried to mess with the polls on sites supporting the opposing view.

        Pretty silly.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:09 am |
  10. Lenny Pincus

    It must be terribly embarrassing for creationists to watch as their concepts are thoroughly and publicly destroyed.

    I give that museum one more year.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:42 am |
    • Otis

      Surprisingly I think they are actually quite busy there and they are expanding now making a Disney-like Ark Park a bit further south!

      February 5, 2014 at 11:07 am |
      • QuestionEverything

        The museum itself has seen attendance, and profits, declining ever since it opened, and due to lack of funds the "Ark Encounter" has been delayed in its completion. If it was not for the $62M bond issue from Williamstown, KY, a couple of months ago, it is likely the park would never be completed.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • tony

          Isn't that a blatant misuse of public funds??

          February 5, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • Hugh Jass

          This publicity will fix it. Kallikaks will rush in from all over the country to see Jesus riding on a dinosaur. I love how they had to admit dinosaurs are real after denying them completely for decades.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:35 am |
    • Joe

      Any more embarrassed than the response being simply "we just don't know." I guess that response is better for you.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:09 am |
      • Fred Evil

        At least it's intellectually honest. Better than all of the rationalization and ignoring of evidence entirely, done by the religious.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • LinCA

        @Joe

        You said, "Any more embarrassed than the response being simply "we just don't know." I guess that response is better for you."
        I will gladly accept an honest "I don't know (yet)" over "(I really don't know either, but) my god did it". Acknowledging that there are limits to knowledge is a far better approach than just claiming magic by your favorite imaginary friend.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:20 am |
      • heehee

        Why on earth would it be embarrassing to not know?

        The gap between the way you and I think can't be bridged.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:28 am |
      • igaftr

        Joe
        Does it embarrass you that you don't know how to perrform barin surgery, or how to legislate contst!tutional law?

        Acknowleging that we do not have the answers is what allows us to try to find the answers.

        It is a lot better than "god did it" and making up an answer.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • Joe A

        "We just don't know" – that's the truth. It doesn't matter if someone likes that answer or not.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • Hugh Jass

      Oh no, you can't fix stupid. The museum will get more money because of this. He's helpin' Jesus, you know.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:21 am |
    • SteelsittayD

      You can't be serious...or can you? What an ignorant thing to say.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:45 am |
    • Joe A

      Unfortunately, these biblical literal creationists are so lost, and so lack the capacity to look at themselves and their ideas critically, that the sense of embarrassment has not even occurred to them.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
  11. OldSchool

    Nye's argument: science is a defined process that bears repeatable and predictable results, on which other predictable and repeatable results can be inferred and tested...

    Hamm's argument: the Bible is true because it was written by god and can be supported by the Bible...

    February 5, 2014 at 10:35 am |
  12. Joe A

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

    – St. Augustine of Hippo, Fifth Century, on interpretation of Genesis.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • Hugh Jass

      "St. Augustine of Hippo" More like RINO today. He'd never be a Saint with opinions like that! He sounds as Commie as the Pope.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:28 am |
  13. Mat

    Perhaps intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer uses evolution as a technique for creation. The Intelligent Designer could certainly create things that evolve.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:22 am |
    • Saraswati

      Sure, no way to know. Or a bunch of alien high school kids might have created us all with implanted memories. Or we might be someones dream. Or a million other maybes...but we don't take up science classes with the infinite number of wild stories any half way creative person could come up with. Include every possibility and there's no time left for teaching science.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:42 am |
    • LinCA

      @Mat

      You said, "The Intelligent Designer could certainly create things that evolve."
      While that is true, by inserting this creature into the hypothesis you now have the burden to provide evidence for its existence and the methods and principles by which it operates.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:46 am |
      • tony

        Or intelligent design team, like we, made in god's image, use all the time, here on earth. So god's a plenty in that case.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • LinCA

          @tony

          You said, "Or intelligent design team, like we, made in god's image, use all the time, here on earth."
          You use your fairy tale to support the notion of its main character. That's like saying that Superman is real because of the comic books written about him. You'll have to provide some independent corroboration for your assertions before they hold water.

          February 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      The catholic church's viewpoint on evolution is exactly that. They have no problem with the idea that god uses evolution as the method of creation.
      Ultimately though intelligent design just boils down to 'god did it'

      February 5, 2014 at 10:53 am |
    • ksocreative

      it's a good assertion. is there any observable predictive evidence?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:00 am |
    • Skyler

      If you hold to this proposition, you will need to shelve the old bible, and come up with a new one.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:07 am |
    • newsrell

      Sure, it is an acceptable argument, except for one thing. You mentioned evolution in your argument, using it for the intelligent design concept. Can we at least agree that it takes a long time for evolution to show its positive affect ? We do not change to adapt to new environment in just a few generations, but as fossils have shown, it take millions of years for a specie to change significantly. Does the religious side still hold to their "precious" bible date ? Intelligent design cannot have enough time to show any effect in your few thousands "precious" years written in stone in the bible. What ? wanna change story again ?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:24 am |
    • Hugh Jass

      Perhaps William of Ockham was right and we should go with the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions? Heck no, he was probably an atheist!

      This country is ruled by people who believe in magical fairies.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:33 am |
    • Hugh Jass

      " The Intelligent Designer could certainly create things that evolve." Why didn't He put that in His Bible, then? Sorry, but we have to burn you at the stake for heresy now.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:36 am |
  14. Amy

    It seemed a pointless debate. Ham proved he could not answer questions, he just repeated his beliefs over and over, no explanation.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:20 am |
    • Madtown

      I didn't watch, but from the clips I've seen it was very predictable. "Answers" constisted of "it's in the bible". "We do have a book that explains this", etc.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • Hugh Jass

      What did you expect? Their whole point is that their Granpappy believed in God and though science was the Devil, and if you have a different opinion from your Granpappy, you are a bad person who doesn't respect tradition. Of course he's gonna just bark and howl Bible stuff instead of actually debating. Debate a duck and it will just quack; ducks can't debate any more than fanatics.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:40 am |
    • SteelsittayD

      @Amy – Were we watching the same debate? It seems bias has so poisoned your mind, that you are incapable of posting reason. Ham backed up what he said. Perhaps he didn't back his reasoning up with what you would, but I don't really think he's too concerned with what you think or believe. There sure was a lot that Mr. Nye didn't know, nor could he explain either. What about that? Instead, what we don't know it beautiful and it drives us! C'mon, be real.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:51 am |
  15. Clarence LeBlanc

    To call this farce a debate is an insult to humanity. It does help explain why people fly planes into buildings…same ignorence…different point.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:19 am |
    • Dave

      Right wing extremist ideology and ignorance explains why fanatics commit such acts of evil. They will do literally anything in order to forcefully convert others to their sorry belief system.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:23 am |
  16. Wingrider

    I am still wondering why we have this debate between creationism and evolution, as they are not mutually exclusive. It does not eliminate one's belief if you think at some point an ape came out of a tree and evolved into the first man and woman, or if you believe God created them in the middle of nothing, we can still call them Adam and Eve. The same goes with all extinct and newly formed animals. Life goes on.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:19 am |
    • LinCA

      Remind me, what happened to Lilith, Adam's first wife?

      This debate is worth having because ignorance of science hurts the individual and society.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:39 am |
      • Will

        The idea of Lilith as a "prior first woman" before Eve arises much later. The only reference to Lilith in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) is Isaiah 34:14, probably written around 540 BC; it's a description of desolation, jackals and ravens among nettles and briers, etc.: "Goat demons shall greet each other; there too the lilith will repose." Most of the other creatures referenced in this poetry cannot be positively identified. The KJV, following the Vulgate, translates "the lilith" as "the night demon," confusing the lili- with the Hebrew word for night. But presumably Isaiah meant some sort of demon.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:26 am |
    • Saraswati

      The debate was held in a young earth forum and really was on that topic. There are plenty of topics for debate. At worst this was poorly described.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:44 am |
    • Primewonk

      "debate between creationism and evolution, as they are not mutually exclusive"

      They are mutually exclusive. But it isn't simply creationism vs evolution, it's a thousand different creation myths vs valid science.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:44 am |
      • Live4Him

        Which is why evolutionist feel the need to fake evidence to support their beliefs. It is just another religion in disguise.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • Jahtez

          Who faked evidence?
          Now you're saying evolution is a religion?

          February 5, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • tony

          Your ninth commandment is slipping again.

          It's one thing to quote the bible, Quite another to lie like Satan.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • Hugh Jass

          "Now you're saying evolution is a religion?" His religion says it is. But his religion also burns people at the stake for "witchcraft," so who cares what pathetic beliefs he cherishes? And of course it's a lie, but christian sharia allows one to lie to the infidels.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • Fred Evil

          What 'fake evidence' are you talking about? The only faked evidence I've heard of is the 'Bible.'

          February 5, 2014 at 11:57 am |
    • Hugh Jass

      "some point an ape came out of a tree and evolved into the first man and woman" Hmmm, that's about as accurate as saying a book named Jesus created the world in 7 days out of loaves and fishes by parting the Red Sea. You just go right on believing a book made you out of a fish, sonny boy.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:44 am |
  17. Dave

    The thing is, religious people are too often like the Duck Dynasty cast. They use the Bible and the religion as evidence of who their God supposedly hates. That is the extent the religious belief. To defend bigotry rooted deeply in willful ignorance.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:18 am |
    • Ken Hamm

      Thats a pretty solid way of putting it

      February 5, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • Live4Him

      And of course the secularist hates everyone who doesn't agree with them.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:33 am |
      • Saraswati

        Dave's statement refered to a subgroup of indefinite number as "too often" occurring. Yours is an absolutist statement which appears to encompass all secular people. I hope that is an accident.

        February 5, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • Live4Him

          And you missed my point entirely. My point is: Who is better qualified to define the views of a group of people – those within the group or those who oppose that group? Only a fool tries to define the views of his/her opponent. Dave is obviously one such person and I was point that fact out. A wise person would ASK their opponent for their viewpoint.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Live4Him

          correction: I was pointing that fact out.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • Jahtez

          Wow. Dave was just commenting; he was the OP, therefore he didn't have an identitified "opponent". You made yourself the opponent when you have your knee-jerk reactionary defensive comment. Which was nothing more than a "I know you are, but what am I?" silly generalization.
          If you're not one of the DD group Dave was referencing, why such a reaction?
          You did the same with Reality. Really, you're better than this...I thought.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • Hugh Jass

          "Only a fool tries to define the views of his/her opponent. " Like you do over and over by saying "science is a religion which competes with Christianity." You are about the biggest fool on the internet.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:50 am |
      • Charm Quark

        Poor L4H a martyr in her own mind, enjoying your persecution complex, sweetie?

        February 5, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • Live4Him

          Sorry, you're not my type and I'm already taken. 🙂

          February 5, 2014 at 11:12 am |
      • jpo

        I don't hate you. I pity you for your ignorance and I worry about the fate of our nation. You should worry that a religion other than your own will become the national (forced) religion.

        February 5, 2014 at 10:56 am |
      • Science Works

        L4H

        Bill Nye defends evolution in Kentucky debate

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-nye-defends-evolution-in-kentucky-debate/

        February 5, 2014 at 11:23 am |
  18. Jesus Christ Son of God

    Those sheep that believe in god will never believe otherwise. We should quit trying to convince them or exterminate them, probably the latter, as it will prevent further inbreeding.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:16 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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.