time because we saw the migration of language and by cleaning up of the definitions so i think we do have some ability to use that. i go back to conversations i have with the ceos now because one of the missions is in the community bank environments to ensure that language access for their boards and part of that mission, one question i get a lot in the observation is when i listen to you use scare the hell out of me and then i go back to the institution and they say everything is okay and that shouldn't be the end of the conversation or at the beginninf the conversation but what's important is that question wasn't even necessarily being asked sufficiently within the senior management suites of the organizations and so when you get to the point where as i said

before where do those eyeballs gravitate towards, they might gravitate towards regulation that regulation in a lot of cases can be quite technical in nature so what is going to be some overlying documented that a manager can look at to really get to the right questions and so i think that this framework does start to do that. i think this is an ongoing conversation as they indicated they think that this is going to continue to morph as time goes on. it will get better as time goes on and the dhs and national security staff will help us with that as it migrated more towards a collaborative, not more collaborative, that it can increasingly collaborative environment and based on what we've already done. so i think -- >> that is a good place to start. >> does it speak to the audience

and a sophisticated company such as viewers which is again, that very the audience that you have through the large supply-chain? >> i think it does. realistically it is a 30 to 40 plus page document so i'm not sure that i would call that an executive little document, but it has a lot of good information and there's going to be challenges breaking it down in simple terms but it's the best effort i've seen and it's going to be useful. we have a pretty robust cyber program in place but we will be using it to see how it complements the existing program and i think from an executive perspective it's the most important in some different practices and if you have a desirable level to achieve it is a simple way of understanding it in the future.

it's very and with lots of different companies and utilities within. is this something that you're going to be able to communicate with them throughout all of these different levels? >> if one looks at the collection of utilities for the various comments at the various stages you see the huge companies and all kind of ownership types. so they certainly picked this up as an effort of interest and as a tool that will be useful in things they might not have been able to do. it's great to hear and we have other members that have told us it is a useful thing that they can use. the membership isn't cybersecurity by large it is the practitioners and utilities who don't do cybersecurity day in and day out and that is the

audience of the framework. they know what we need to do and we have all of the standards referenced in the framework and in the compendium if the folks who implement and maintain technology in the critical infrastructure who don't all the time. they need to use the schools in the toolbox to communicate across the organization with a cybersecurity colleagues and it colleagues all over the place and i think it does speak at that level. >> why don't we continue and take on a question that the last panel addressed about the metrics for success. how do you determine if it is successful? the program as a whole. >> the framework has already been successful in a certain way because they national conversation on this topic.

over the past year there was a group of how many hundreds of people who came together to talk about this. it's been all over the news by friends that have nothing to do with this and that is a good thing. it is positive. there's all kinds of opinions. in the utility sector i think that it will be achieved when we know in a certain way that that utilities off all sizes have looked at this and that they have implemented some sort of a minimum-security practice. whether they've done it through the framework were -- it really doesn't matter because it encompasses them all. so when we see that there is some sort of an adoption of some sort of cybersecurity practice, i think that is success. in the energy sector we are lucky that they are bringing it out into the world. so, we can actually tell that things are happening.

>> there will probably never be a victory parade in the cybersecurity space. but how do we determine -- i guess how do we determine that we are on a successful path in the framework lacks >> i kind of want to piggyback because having been through the cybersecurity discussion going on, we were talking a couple years ago how we allocate, so the framework and some of the discussions on the hill accomplish that at higher levels of company we've had before. a lot of questions from senior executives about the framework and the cybersecurity. it is a legislative and local press reports that have come up on securities of cybersecurity has been a lead to a higher level than in the past and company's looking at as we were. i think as far as the framework itself goes, the easiest way to measure its success would be how wisely it is used into the

reason i say that is because inherently it is a voluntary framework so if it is used in the industry you are presuming that the companies are looking at it and saying there is a business value making the decision to use a voluntary framework in their businesses. so i think if it is wisely used they are presuming a value that it provides in the security perspective and that should mean the bar is being raised on securities of that is how i would look at how to determine how it is being, how successful it is being right now. >> do you think the government will have the right to how it is being used? >> that was a conversation or couple days ago. >> that is some sort of a certification at the end of the day that we seem to be moving away from interim adoption. one of the things we have learned in the fraud environment

that can be helpful in this environment going forward we want to find quantitative measures. it's the quantitative ones that are going to be more difficult. i think frankly over time. that is how well can we measure what we stopped as opposed to what has gotten in our systems and i think on the fraud site we do that very well in the financial services because there is no way for us to justify the management expenses in fraud mitigation unless we can measure what we mitigated and prevented from occurring in the fraud environment. and so, we have done a pretty good job of defining what that should look like, how you measure that and we have done it from 1997 and increasingly of course we are measuring that in the electronic environment. so by way of example ten years from now what i'm about to say since 1997 for fraud in the

cyber incident i think that we have done well and that is a 1997 for every dollar the fraud we stopped in the environment and we lost a dollar. now in the last year for every dollar of fraud that we lost, we actually kept $10 from going out the door into so those are the kind of quantitative measurements i think that we should be able to develop over time to measure our level of success in the individual institutions as well as industry's overall. and that might be a helpful way to think about it. >> interestingly. >> i like to put a caveat success sounds like a very finite place. like we are all going to arrive at success. but that's not how the cybersecurity role is going to work into so i think we have to manage expectations about what we can think about success looking like. and the way that i think about success of the framework in the voluntary program is if we can move forward in the approach,

the phase that we are in right now is we have just released a document two days ago. there are not a lot of additional incentives out to bring people along who haven't necessarily been doing things already. and so what we have is the opportunity to make people aware of the process to drive that cultural change that i think the framework does not to affect. are we reaching the right people likes one of thflex one of the n challenges in the critical infrastructure space really defining what is critical is focusing on the areas of high risk. one of the things i would encourage us to think about is what is the right target audience is and then getting the feedback from them is the framework useful to you, how did it work about what were your

challenges? those were the two initial phases and then i believe as the incentives get to build out and we start to get feedback in on how this is being used we will have more information to feed with the metrics should be like down the road we don't want to be sitting around counting incidents. that's both impossible and not meaningful because we don't know what that means relative to one another. we are going to have major data breaches and so in the measuring success, we also starts to havee to continue having the outreach and awareness conversations with the policymakers and here in dc. but this isn't going to be a static point of success that counts a particular numbers might not be it but we have to think about an evolving process because the framework is beginning to be involved and what companies can apply in terms of the resources, so it is an evil -- evi evolve conversat.

we would have found it to be a success for the communication sector is the same number of customers that have service level agreements in the physical events have the same number of customers and also have some factor in there for cyber. i think this will be a success if the culture has successfully permeated that there is no such thing as being at home without antivirus into some sort of protection on your home computer and i think that makes it huge success because you've kind of got a safety net. which then allows us to put resources with time and effort and pinpointing on what is the most critical. and that most critical 20 way or

do we apply the resources so that we are automated, repeatable, adaptive, all that? so much about this framework in my mind was about raising the bar. and if they have stuff on their computers conduct huge. it allows us to redirect resources for some of the harder things. what do you think of the most important incentives that the government can provide and how does this fit into the whole process? gimmick of the government doesn't need to provide an incentive to use the framework that has to be the cheapest thing on earth. read it.

we struggled so hard to make sure it is readable but you could get it. for any company that does and read it and think maybe i need to think. that have to have been the most cost effective way of preserving their business, their brand, the customer's confidence, no matter what company you were in so it is highly cost-effective. and i think that is an incentive that it was made so simple. now that is the mainstream. they are going to need i think to be some incentives particularly in the television sector they are fairly more sophisticated and robust if there are probably things that we as a collective sector could do. it's not only our networks for customers using our networks. that's where we need legislation

and that will be an incentive there as well. the different incentives are going to matter to the people. the things that will matter to my organization will be different than those in the constituency. microsoft security and privacy guidance is already consistent insecurity it's already consistent with the guidance that has come out of the framework going back for years to the ugly days that you might read member in the early 2,000 so we are already doing this they might matter to other people here that is to focus again on what is the target audience i'm trying to effect change and what are the incentives that are going to matter to them.

those that are doing a lot already are going to be the procurement preferences, potentially really driving the supplsupply-chain effect that we all talked about which is if you have organizations that are contracting with the federal government requiring them to use the framework and then pushing that out through the supply-chain i think we'l will a significant effect in the marketplace. on the other one i will raise and this is definitely from the global company point of you one of the incentives we think is important is working towards the harmonization towards these types of approaches to the cyber risk management on the global basis. both industry and government in our harbors and the european union working on the network and information security directive and also thinking about what are the right things to do for the cybersecurity working towards the harmonization is another significant incentive on the

demand side and the other is on the supply-side incentive and michael brought this up when he kicked off on the discussion. there are a lot of organizations in the small and midsized businesses who are going to look at this and say this might be something that i do, how do i do it? i don't have the people, i don't have the capability. i am a little concerned about how to resources. and that is going to come back to those of us that provide the services who may be able to offer the cloud-based services to help fulfill the functionality that exists across different parts of the framework so you have to think about it for both sides. and then the other things that are going to say was what i want twanted to offer the customer base to help them with? >> we have heard a lot from everybody in the first panel and

also from kathy and angela about the market-based incentives, and i think that is really going to be the primary driver and hope to get a couple of different examples of that. on the insurance side we have already seen the insurance carriers going into some of the larger institutions and ask for specific question what are you doing about implementing the cybersecurity framework. so essentially, those conversations are already happening within some of our larger financial institutions. notwithstanding insurance, they were looking at it in large part anyway, but it's the insurance industry looking at how this all fits together and how they might be able to factor the utilization framework and the pricing and the long-term, not today, not tomorrow, but in the long-term that is really starting to happen as well. and i think another thing in the insurance realm is the a surety and fidelity situation, the folks that essentially write the

policies have come to us and said we are about to write or rewrite our computer crime policy that essentially the carriers use. how do we factor in the framework in that particular process as well and so i think there's some good thinking already by those in terms of how this might end up working going forward. and i take the points that we are brought by the government panel that those are the kind of things that need to happen. because if it isn't market-driven, it's not going to succeed. we are not going to have the opportunity. now i will deal with the one that is that i see one and that is the two pieces of the liability protection that's talked about. we have these conversations particularly when he's with the senate intelligence and the supporting senator rockefeller and i know how much he loves the safety act for instance as well.

i think that those are two very difficult questions in terms of how the liability protection can be really baked into this cake to the extent someone is abiding by the framework should they be able to enjoy a liability protections to the extent they have and that they are sharing information which is the other side of it. should they be able to have some level of liability protection to give clarity to that information sharing. and both of those questions frankly are very difficult and cannot be market driven to the same degree that the others have. so that is where the government is going to have to play the role in trying to figure out for instance what existing programs in the dhs might have relevance to give liability protections to the extent that events occur and what kind of clarity can be given in terms of specifically what percentage of identifiable information how it is defined because there is not clarity in

that and that does create some challenges with the cross sector sharing at this particular juncture so those are two areas that the government is going to have to play a role. >> what is your take on incentives and i guess particularly for the smaller companies, the midsized companies, the ones that everyone agree he to pick up their game a notch, do they need some kind of incentive on the tangible side to make the improvements that we would like to see for the overall cybersecurity? >> i will address the smaller sized companies but if you are the chairmen speak we already had a huge incentive to invest in cybersecurity. we invest significantly as pointed out on microsoft we

already invest significantly in the cybersecurity capabilities and we have a very robust security plan in place and we will be looking at the framework and evaluating how it can complement what we are doing, that we think we take cybersecurity as a significant issue in our day-to-day busine business. we look at the option of the framework or the use of the frameworin theframework of the e in the practices. the companies our size are generally looking for i think from the small and medium-sized business i can't really speak from them, but to look for at&t. from that standpoint i think one of the reasons cut that's one of the reasons of framework is so flexible and allows it to be adaptive to the business needs. the idea before was how can we get them even talking about cybersecurity. there was discussion about the don't even know where to begin.

apply the framework adapted to the situation. they should be able to pick and choose to pose the categories and subcategories it can make it cost effective as opposed to it being a big checklist you have to do 100 things they can pick from the list and to say i'm going to do one or two things into categories and potentially customize it to their business so by allowing the flexibility they are not making it something that is a top down checklist approach. hopefully that will allow the small and medium-sized businesses to customize it to their risk. the last comment is there's thee issue of disincentives. so, there's the issue of as long as the framework continues to be voluntary and flexible you are going to see widespread support in the industry but if there's a

generathere isa general view woe industry uses the framework but still faces down the road to the risk of incremental regulation as applied, that is going to have a chilling effect on the use of the framework. it is appropriate for government focus on the panel this morning to talk about the regulators reducing the regulations in the mindset of how to streamline and how to basically harmonize with the framework that the idea of the incremental regulation are growing the regulatory base would have a chilling effect on the company's ongoing support. >> it is on the improvement the framework is expected to have specifically in the supply chain and when they purchase because of the technology including investor control systems created a liability protection is

important. primarily locally and primarily with who they know. getting the right information from the government into usable shape and form and then sharing it on themselves is the lack of attention to that important. another thing that is important is the regulations. it's independent. so, streamlining the regulations and i say this cautiously because god forbid it is the way that it is and it's okay. we know how to deal with it, but that state and local plus various other guidelines that affect the utilities, but other parts of the utility operation is extremely, extremely important. so any work for government agencies can do to work with the state and local organization ors

that whatever they end up doing it during the local utilities does not conflict in the framework because right now we are located in facilities in different states and we will get different audit results from the same set of information that they submit. so what we would really like to do is to demonstrate compliance or adherence or the following of whatever it is that our numbers are subject to. >> that leads to my next question on regulation. we have heard repeatedly from the administration the goal isn't to create new regulations here. section ten of the executive order has been something of a bogeyman throughout the whole process through a little fearful of what may come out of that. what is your sense right now of whether there is a command and control structure in the future

here. are you satisfied this is a voluntary track or what do you u think? >> personally, i am satisfied in the reassurance that this is voluntary. and i do the best job i ca can o tell my members but there will always be an anxiety on this topic. and again especially with having an independent regulatory agency in our space and the state and local agencies these are all outside of the executive order. so again, the collaborative work that we understand, the white house into the dhs are doing with state and local and independent bigotry agencies is extremely important for us in assuring this doesn't somehow inadvertently become the basis for regulation when it was not intended to do so. so. >> you talk about how the framework exists in the regulations and your thoughts on what the future holds?

>> i think it is fair for the harmonization and streamlining to ocher on the private sector side i think we have been very encouraged by the comments made in the administration about the nonregulatory. we have had some conversations with independent regulators and at this point in time we are optimistic to work with them to rollout the framework in the sector that will work for both the business side and for the agency side, and i think that if katherine pointed out, we are very prepared to start in the outreach committee working in the sector to get the broad-based adoption in the communication sector. things will proceed down the path and there are a lot of venues in the court and counsel to accomplish a lot of things

without having to go down a regulatory panel. >> your sector has advanced -- >> we have regulations in the financial service and i would observe the framework has had slowed them down at all. [laughter] in any way, shape or form. we have seen in our agencies a thought of interest in the third-party risk management and outsource risk management lately and that wasn't driven by the cybersecurity framework. that was driven by the regulatory concerns in that particular area, and a reminder that all of our partners need to adhere by the way to the gramm leach bliley information requirements. and so, we already have by a regulation a specific linkage between the regulations and our third-party provision services

within the supply chain. i think that what the framework does for us as we talked about before gives us an opportunity to have a better vehicle to talk about how the companies can implement that. i am with chris i am cautiously optimistic on this one. we will see whether or not there is a push towards making sure some of this is mandatory. some of that will obviously be driven by and we will see what the next year brings. so i think that is really up to the congress in a lot of instances to make those kinds of determinations. there was a lot of thinking earlier that this stuff should be mandatory. that could be revisited. so i think it is up to us in the private sector to do what we can on the market basis to keep that happening from the extent that we do our job i think the government doesn't have to come back behind us on a legislative

basis and try to do that for us. >> the last thing going down the line. just as much as there is anxiety when i talk with customers in the u.s. about a regulatory approach is bear equal speculation outside of the united aides about whether or not a voluntary approach will work? i would like to make the point here that is the impetus is up to us to make it work. as i talk with customers and i spent a hugspend a huge amount e talking in the customer base there are a lot of customers that are assuming that the regulation is coming. that is the mindset that they are operating in. the conversation i continue to have with every one is that the impetus is up for those of us here in the space to demonstrate that an industry driven standards based approach can

demonstrably improve cyber security. and so, we need to take the actions to show that this can mitigate and manage the risk of concern and we are also in it for the long game we didn't just come to develop the framework. but this is an ongoing conversation between the industry and the government going forward and we need to see how much the market can do and gave it all of the elbow and shoulder behind it and there may be some space that's left over but let's make sure that we give that opportunity to see now that we have defined what, how much can we put behind so those small areas of risk that actually exceed the kind of approach we see coming out of the baseline are narrow and that the limited resources and the governmen of d industry that can be applied are prioritized on the space. >> do you want to take a whack at the regulatory question and then some questions from the

audience. >> i think between the four individuals -- no i don't think that there is anything left to be said. >> we do have a question and that is for you, catherine. [laughter] >> this is from patrick at light reading. he is asking what kind of legislation do you think is needed for the communication service providers? >> you can certainly talk to the washington office at great length = an advisor, however, i and large, we have been seeking some form of legislative support in terms of not only the information sharing piece of it because i think that you understand the communication sector isn't supposed to share anything about anything about the customers, so we do not.

for instance, if we have a banking customer and that banking customer is under attack, i don't say anything. i tell my bank may be you should call and share this. we see so much and can manage so much and protect so much are precluded by law and we follow that about sharing that kind of information. it might be the time to revisit whether or not it is appropriate or under what circumstances we might be able to share faster so that others can protect so that's one element. there is also an element of if we do see something bad coming what do we do about it and there is a liability protections or if we see bad things coming across the pike, should we turn it off? if we turn it off, and i'm not

talking about the internet turn off button but are there things we should do or things we could do those are things that need to be explored and made understandable, repeatable and adaptive, and in the current environment right now, we cannot do so. we might be in a better position to protect our customers, but this is the sort of thing where if we do take action and we turn off two or three people, two or 300 people because we think we are trying to protect 2,000, that is where the dialogue needs to occur and is occurring and we will see how it plays out. >> there's a lot of conversation between the two industries about those issues. >> of the industry is no big secret we have been pushing for

the establishment of the framework oa frameworkabout thef cybersecurity that includes section for information sharing. i want to stress the point is not just information sharing is also the practice of cybersecurity. right now it is an exception within existing statute. it's kind of viewed as an exception function so from that perspective it's important that there be clarity in the law that cybersecurity is a positive thing that should be done and that it's not something that is viewed in the negative like so that is a legal framework around the performance on cybersecurity including the monitoring and other actions is where we would like to drive the conversation in the congress. >> the generation transmission cooperative located in minneso

minnesota. i don't think my question is for this panel or the audience in general, but everyone in this room and on this panel come from large companies and as a generation of the transmission electric sole power to the 20 industries in members who while we have an it staff and security department from our distribution vendors do not. they may have one it person come and assuming we also have dependent companies in minnesota as well .-full-stop are assuming are in a similar situation i don't even know that they know this framework exists, so i'm curious if there is a plan on how to communicate the framework to these companies who might not even know that it exists because they have a large impact as well collectively, not as much as the large companies do but collectively there is a large impact and how do you make sure that they are being i guess

taking these considerations in the framework into account? >> that is a critical question. >> i would like to take a little bit of that because we are conflicted on every issue because we represent large and small and medium-sized institutions and we have thousands of community being that we work with and i deal with that issue every day in terms of trying to ensure the practices and the larger institutions to the extent that they are repeated in the community bank environments. i think that one mechanism that we use rather than just the working groups is our fsi because we have 4,000 members. and many of them are community banks and we also use the coordinating council environment to do that as well because many of the trade association that are within the financial service coordinating council represent

institutions within our financial services sector broadly as well. so the answer is every single communication imaginable really should be utilized to just get the word out that first of all the framework is out, and second of all how can we at the top level talk about the framework to encourage institutions to actually look at it. that is the job of the trade associations is to really build up those relevant talking points so the smaller issues understand this is meaningful and helpful to them as they have those conversations about cybersecurity. >> that is of importance to jurors as -- yours as well.

>> we had a bunch of people stuck in town and i really appreciate the support. this reaching out to the smaller organizations and has been a concern throughout this process. they are doing the usual outreach staff. there's also a number of things being done by individual sectors and the energy sector as well as all of the other sectors. there are things the government can do in the administration and a variety of outreach efforts we need to do as a community. again outside of the normal that we are all in and of th the peon the cybersecurity are in smaller organizations and have never heard of it, but maybe they read the news and they know that it's

a problem so it is a conversation about how it's going to happen but they are encouraging the signs as well. >> every single member has been very articulate about what are the needs of their constituents, and in particular the cooperative association. so we will be working with them collectively and individually to make sure they have what they need to talk to their constituencies and they will be part of the feedback in the implementation so that if for instance we fin find that the telephone cooperatives are not, that they are missing this or they don't get that or they need more help that is a very important feedback loop to the governor of partners. >> of the other thing i would ask is the vast a question to emphasize the point -- trying to

make in the panel, which is we need to think not only about the broad outreach and awareness, but who are we intending to target, what matters to them, what are the resources available to them, and then get that feedback into the process. so it really ties to thinking about who we are trying to reach and accomplishing the awareness and not just scattershot the resources. first of all, thank you very much for bringing the issue out from just the americas here. from the point of view of the framework i would like to applaud the fact that we have a level that we can rally around now globally, not just in the u.s., so that is very helpful.

the one thing i am concerned about is the cybersecurity is an issue around the holistic design, and the ability to actually implement all the way through the supply chain. the timescales we look at we have sort of a 30 year cycle. yet some of the things we are talking about as if we can do that in nine months and i am interested how we are going to secure the design and implementation and the rollout of the framework in a timely manner to secure the critical infrastructure. >> a couple things i would say on that. this does bring up one point where there is an opportunity for improvements in the framework moving forward because

there is an opportunity to enhance the guidance around the secular engineering practices in the framework as we think about moving forward. you are talking about the holistic overall approach and you know, there are a lot of organizations who are doing a lot to have the secure engineering practices. that said when i think about what is going on in the critical infrastructure space, almost every one is an it producer or provider at this point. you are building in-house applications in order to be able to do the processes that are unique to your self and so when i think specifically about the framework itself i think enhancing practices across the ecosystem is one area where we can think about improvement. the other piece on the change over time, because that's the other piece i hear in your

question is environments that are architects in one place and geandget to the risk landscape t practices and innovation to deal with it are moving very fast. what occurred in the primary infrastructure space in early 2,000 what is in the industrial now we are starting to have the conversations about the secure engineering practices and have the conversations about how you'd use new and environments like the cloud and virtual machines so that you can run the live switch over another virtual machine inside of the same server. so this is where again the framework is driving a conversation that needs to occur because some of the practices that have occurred in the primary may also need to occur in the operational technology space that you are dealing in so it's not that i have a specific answer now but again it gets to this as a catalyst of a conversation between the communities that will help to

either address or manage some of those concerns. >> the framework has been discussed between the suppliers and we talked this morning about its being providing the market-based incentives. the discussion tha that is first having been a communication space for a long time and hopeful as far as the utility space that will percolate and help provide that catalyst for the suppliers to further adopted the engineering practices and it isn't going to happen overnight. but raising the level of discussion in the united states and kind of migrating in the collaboration that oversees the address i think would be helpf helpful. we already have expectations that the suppliers are adopting

secure practices. we talked about that this week that today when we do a supply agreement with at&t you have to meet certain criteria and we have the processes in place and that will continue. angela makes a good point i hope the framework does become a catalyst for the discussion about more secure engineering practices. it is really about the business processes and risk management and getting into that layer that you should be thinking about in the business to secure your risk that each individual company has their own business to apply for themselves. we talk about the privacy design and the concept is something that is necessary in addition to the framework itself. >> this is a terrific

conversation about what's going on here and what are the next steps to look for. thank you very much and look forward to continuing the conversation. i'm going to hand it back over. thank you. [applause] so, very quickly i want to thank the panelists both on the industry and the government side and the moderators and i also want to thank the audience both here in person and the folks in cyberspace. we look forward to the further discussions with the national cyber security policy will continue to be a venue for these conversations and i think all of you -- thank all of you. [applause] in audible conversations in audible conversations ongoing political violence in

ukraine. athe white house issued a statement saying in part we are outraged by the images of the security forces firing automatic weapons on their own people. can you walk us through what is dropping cpi and the president's budget, is this basically an acknowledgment that whatever hope there may have been that a grand bargain could be accomplished? >> well, let me answer that in a

couple of ways. first, it's important for you and the readers to understand that this option, this offer from the president remains on the table. you will recall that in the context of the discussions that we have been having with congressional republicans about reducing the deficit the president had forth ideas how we could do that in a balanced way. that means the president put forth ideas and republicans themselves support things like changes to the entitlement program and couple them with some things the president thinks is a good policy like closing tax loopholes and using revenue from those loopholes savings from the entitlement changes the republicans thought to reduce the deficit. so the president was willing to step forward and put on a concrete proposal. unfortunately, the republicans refuse to even consider the possibility of raising from the revenue by closing the loopholes that benefit only the wealthy at

the well-connected. so that is an unfortunate policy choice that republicans themselves have made but the thing that is also important to understand is that we have made substantial progress reducing the deficit. there's more wthere is more we d that's why the author remains on the table. over the last few years the deficit in the country has reduced or has been declining at the fastest rate since world war ii. but it will show when it is released in a couple of weeks it will show the deficit at the end of the ten-year window will be at less than 2% of gdp. that sounds technical, but i am raising it for an important reason. you will recall when democrats and republicans agreed that we should work in a bipartisan fashion and appointed a commission to advance proposals for reducing the deficit, the goal that was identified by

simpson bowles was as a percentage of gdp to below 3%. but what the projection shows in the course of the next ten years or in ten years, the percentage would actually be below 2% so it made substantial progress. we welcome the opportunity to cooperate further and reduce the deficit further come up with the president alsat thepresident als important that we start spending some time focusing on the policies we can put in place to expand economic opportunity for americans.

>> i grew up in a very small catholic community. when i was growing up, the two classes about whether it was first in the second or third and fourth were all in the same classroom, and at that time, there was a small group of girls. there was a mary beth, and marianne and mary jo and then there was mary katherine. my parents never called me mary. my name is kathy. but my best friend was kathy and associated cited in third grade that she would rename me. she was a voracious reader and had already read hundreds of books and heidi was one of her

favorite books and she gave me the name heidi and it stuck. >> later we will talk with john thune and how his grandfather changed the name. >> my grandfather came from norway and when they got to ellis island, they didn't know english with the exception of the word apple pie and coffee which they learned on the way over but they were asked by the immigration officials to change their name because they thought it would be difficult to spell and pronounce the people in this country and their name in norway was gjiklsk. so they picked the name of the farm where they lived near norway which was called the thune farm. so my grandfather became known as nick thune and they got to ellis island and had a sponsor and came out to work on the railroad. >> american profile interviews with senators heidi heitkamp and

john thune starting on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. next on c-span to a debate on evolution and creationism. we will hear from bill nye the science guy and ken ham, the founder of the creation museum. >> i am pleased to welcome you to legacy hall, the creation museum in northern kentucky in the metropolitan area of cincinnati. i am from cnn and i am pleased to be the moderator for this evolution versus creation debate. this is an old question. where did we come from. my answer is from washington this morning by airplane. [laughter] but there is a much more profound and longer answer people have sought after for a long time. so tonight's question is the following. is creation a viable model of origins and today's modern

scientific era? we have hundreds of thousands of people who are watching on the internet at debatelive.org. of course the auditorium here are all the folks of joined us as well and we are joined by the media representatives from many of th the worlds great news organizations and we are glad to have them here as well and welcome that debate, mr. bill nye and ken ham. [applause] >> we had a quaint house earlier to determine who would go first of these two men and the only one missing was joe namkuth and

a first coat. mr. ham one that claimed foss and he opted to speak first. but first, but they told you about these gentlemen. mr. nye's site describes him as a scientist, engineer, comedian and author author. he produced a number of tv shows including the one that he became so well-known for, "bill nye the science guy." mr. nye won seven awards for writing, performing at producing the shows come as he won 18 emmys in five years and in between creating the show's committee wrote five kids books about science including the latest title, bill nye's great big book of tiny germs. he's the host of three television series that programmed 100 greatest discoveries on the science channel, the eyes of nye across the country and he appears on interview programs to discuss a variety of science topics.

mr. nye serves as director of the planetary, th about science space interest group. he's a graduate of cornell and a bachelors of science degree in mechanical engineering. mr. ken ham is the president and cofounder of answers and janice is a viable defending organization that upholds the authority of the scripture from the first verse. he's the mahe is the man behindr high-tech creation museum where we are holding this debate. debate. it's a 2 million visitors and has attracted much of the world's media via the answers in genesis website is attracted with 2 million visitors alone last month. mr. ham is also a best-selling author, speaker and host of a radio feature carried on 700 plus stations. this is his second public debate on evolution and creation. the first was at harvard in the 1990s. mr. ham is a native o of australia's and earned his bachelor's degree with an emphasis on environmental biology from the queensland

institute of technology as well as diploma as education at the university of queensland in australia. .. should scientists debate creationists? right here i believe there's a gross representation in our culture. we are seeing people to believe

the creationists can be scientist. i believe it's all part of hijacking the word science. i want you to meet a modern-day scientist who is a biblical creationist. >> i am a professor of engineering design. i'm with the university in the uk. i have published over 130 signed papers on the science of design and engineering and biological system. from my research work i find that scientific evidence fully supports creationism as the best explanation to origin. spencer here's a biblical creationist as a scientist is also an inventor and i want young people to understand that. the problem i believe is this. we need to define terms crackly.

we need to define creation, evolution and regard to origin and when you to define science. in his opening statement i want to constitute with the word science. i believe the word has been hijacked by secularist. what is science? the origin of the word comes from classical latin word which means to know. it was a science means state of knowing, knowledge. different types of knowledge. this is where the confusion lies. there's experimental observation science, using the scientific method's observation commissions, experiments. that's what produces our technology, computers, checkpoints, smoke detectors, looking at dna, and the body. medicines and vaccines. all signed is what a christian is our revolution is actually have the same observation or experimental science. and doesn't matter whether christians or evolution as you can be a great scientist. he is an atheist is a great scientist, one of the first researchers to sequence human

genome or dr. raymond damadian can revolutionize medicine, a biblical creationist. i wanted to understand molecules in an evolution believe has nothing to do with developing technology. when we talk about origins we are talking about the path between our origins. we wanted there. we can't observe that. whether it's the creation account. when you're talking about the past we like to call the origins or historical science. here at the creation museum we make no apology about the fact that our origins or historical science actually are based upon the biblical account of origins. when you research science textbooks being used in public schools what we found is this. it up, the origins of historical science is based upon man's idea about the past. the ideas of darwin. our researchers found textbooks are using the same word science for observation, science and

historical science. they arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. they present molecules demand evolution as fact. they are imposing their religion of naturalism on students. the word science has been hijacked in teaching evolution to force the religion of naturalism on generations of kids. all life develop financial process that man is just and evolve and which is great very on how we view life-and-death. for instance, as bill states -- >> it's very hard to except for many of us that when you die it's over. >> the bible gives a totally different account of origin, who we are, where it came from, the meaning of life and a future. through one man's sin, but god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. so is creation of viable model of origins in today's modern

scientific there? i said the creation evolution debate is a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origin of science believe in creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science and today's modern scientific era. >> and that is done. i have the unenviable job of being timekeeper. unlike the referee in football you don't like but i will periodically if either one of our debaters runs over anything i will stop them in the name of keeping it there for all. mr. hand, thank you. now it is billed by his attorney. >> thank you. a pleasure to be. i appreciate you including me in your facility here. looking around and i think i see just one bow tie, is that right? once you try -- yes, too. that's great. i started wearing bow ties when i was young high school. my father showed me, his father showed him.

there's a story associated with this, which i find remarkable. my grandfather was in the rotary and he attended a convention in philadelphia. even in those days at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos. a tuxedo came with a bowtie, untied bowtie. he did not to tie it so wasn't sure what to do, he just took a chance. he went to the whole -- the hotel room extra, knocked on the door, excuse me, can you help me time i die? that i said sure, lie down on the bed. so my grandfather wanted to have a tie on, wasn't sure what he was getting into, so he said to have lain on the bed and the guy died a perfect bowtie not come and quite recently my grandfather said thank you. why did i have to lie down on the bed. the guy said i am an undertaker. [laughter] the only way i know how to do

it. that story was presented to me as a true story. it may or may not be. it gives you something to think about, and certainly something to remember. so here tonight we're going to have to stories. we can compare mr. hand's story to the store from what i will call the outside, from mainstream science. the question tonight is, does ken ham's creation model holds up? is it viable? let me ask you all, what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? that's right, you'd be home watching csi. csi petersburg. i think it's coming. and on csi there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. these are constructs unique to mr. ham. we don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here. natural law as it applied in the

past apply new. that's why they are natural laws. that's why we embrace them. that's how we nail these discoveries that enable all this remarkable technology. csi is a fictional show but it's based on real people doing real work. when you go to the crime scene and find evidence you have clues about the past. you trust those clues and get embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody. mr. ham and his followers have this remarkable view of the worldwide, what? that somehow influenced everything that we observe in nature, a 500-foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals. every land plant in the world underwater for a full year. i asked us all, is that really reasonable? you'll hear about the grand canyon imagine also which is a remarkable place, and it has fossils. the fossils in the grand canyon are found in layers. there's not a single place in

the grand canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. in other words, when there was a big flood on the earth you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level, not anyone of them did. not a single one. if you could find evidence of that, you could change the world. now, i just want to remind us all, there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. who get enriched from a wonderful sense of humanity from the religion. they worshiped together. eat together. they live in their communities and enjoy each other's company. but the same people do not embrace the extraordinary do that the earth is somehow only 6000 years old. that is unique. here's my concern. what keeps the united states ahead, what makes the united states a world leader is our

technology, our new ideas, our innovations. if we continue to us to -- sq signs and try to divide science into an observational science and historic science, we are not going to move forward. we will not embrace natural law, we will not make discoveries, we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead. if you asked me if ken ham's creation model is viable, i would say no. it is ups will not viable. so stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his. thank you all very much. [applause] >> very nice start by both of our debaters here. each one will offer a 30 minute illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider. mr. ham, you are up.

>> the debate topic, is creation of viable origin? i made a statement at my end of my opening statement, creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era and i said, what we need to be doing is actually defining our terms. particularly returns, science, creation and evolution. i discussed the meaning of the word science and what is meant by extremist observational science briefly and that both creation and evolution is can be great scientists. i mentioned craig venter, and biologist, an atheist and he's a great scientists. he was one of the first researchers to sequencing juniper also mention dr. raymond damadian who invented the mri scanner but i want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and inventor. spent my name is dr. raymond

damadian, i am a young creation scientist emily god created the world in six, 24 hour full days just as recorded in the book of genesis. by godby god,'s grace and a devd prayers of my godly mother law i invented the mri scanner in 1969. the idea that scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong. >> is most adamant about the. he revolutionize medicine. is a biblical creationist and i encourage children to follow people like that and make them their here's. let me introduce you to another biblical creation scientist. >> my name is danny faulkner. i received my ph.d from indiana university. for 26 and a half years i was a professor at the university of south carolina where i hold the rank of distinguished professor emeritus. about my retirement and universities ought generally 2013, i joined the research

staff at answers in genesis. i'm a stronger. that is my primary emphasis is stars but in particularly and was instead of binary stars. i have published many articles in the assortment of literature such as the journal, the monocultural and the observatory. there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. >> i also mention doctor stuart burgess, professor of design, engineer design at bristol university in england. he invented, designed a double action -- with three inches of the robotic arm on a very expensive satellite and if that had not worked, that whole satellite would have been useless. yet dr. burgess is a biblical creationist. who believes just as i believe. think about this for a moment. scientist like dr. burgess who believe in creation just as i do, a small minority in the scientific world, but let's see

what he says about scientist believing immigration. >> i find many of my colleagues are sympathetic to the creationist viewpoint. however, they are often afraid to speak out because of the criticism they would get an immediate and atheist lobby. >> that's a real problem today. we need t a freedom to be able o speak on these topics. i just want to say by the way that creation, christian, non-christian scientist i should say, non-krishan scientists are really borrowing from a christian worldview anyway to carry out their experiment or observation science. when they are doing observational science using a scientific method they have to assume the laws of logic, the loss of nature, uniformity of nature. if the universe came about by natural processes, went to the laws of logic come from? are we in a stage that would only have half logic? i had a question for bill mai, how do you account for the rules of logic and the rules of nature

from a naturalistic worldview that exclude the existence of god? in my opening statement i also discuss a different type of science or knowledge, origin or historical science. again there's a confusion here, a misunderstanding here. people by and large have not been taught to look at what you believe about the past is a different to what you are observing in the present to you don't observe the past directly. when you think about the creation account, we can't observe god creating but we can't observe adam and eve. what you see in the present is very different and even some public school textbooks actually, they sort of acknowledged the difference between historical and observational science. it is an earth science textbook used in public schools. in contrast to physical geology the historical geology is to understand earth's long history.

then they make the statement, historic geology, talking about historical science, tries to establish a timeline of a vast number of physical and biological changes that occurred in the past. we study physical geology before historical geology because we first must understand how it works before we try to unravel its past. in other words, we of your things in the present and then we are assuming that's always happened in the past. we are going to try to figure out a seven. there is a difference between what you observe and what happened in the past. let me illustrate it this way. if they'll not and i went to the grand canyon we could agree that that's sandstone and there's a bounty, said one top of the other. we could agree on that. do you know if we disagree on? we could analyze the minerals but we would disagree on how long it took to get there. none of the sandstone, are supposed 10 million year gap but i don't see again. that might be different to what

content would see. but there's a difference between what you observe directly within your interpretation in regard to the past. when i was at the space center a number of years ago i met creationist and evolutionist were both working on the hubble telescope repair agreed on how to build the hubble telescope. they disagreed on how to interpret -- we could go on and talk about lots of other similar sorts of things. for instance, i've heard transit and talk about how smoke detector works using the element, anorexia. i totally agree. we agree how it works. we agree a raid activity enables that to work. but if you talk about the age of the earth you've got a problem because you weren't there. we've got to understand parent elements, daughter of it as well. we could agree on the technology, but we will disagree on how to interpret the origins of mars.

there are some people believe there was a global site on mars and there's no liquid more water on. we're going to disagree made on our interpretation of origin and you can't prove either way because not from an observational science perspective because we only have prayers. creationist and evolutionist both work in medicine and vaccine. it doesn't matter what your creations aren't evolutionist,of all sizes have the same expanded to observational science. i have a question for bill nye. can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecule demand evolution? is another important factor creation and evolutionist all have the same evidence. bill nye and i have the same grand canyon. we don't disagree on the. we have the same fish fossil, the dan dinosaur skeleton, the same humans, the same dna. the same rate active decay

elements that we see. with the same universe actually we all have the same evidence. it's not the evidence is that are different but it's a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past. you know why that is? it's about over worldviews and starting point but it's about over philosophical views and starting points that is the same evidence. i admit my starting point is god is the ultimate authority. if someone doesn't accept that the man has to be the ultimate authority. that's what a difference. i've been emphasizing the difference between historical origins science, knowledge about the past and we went there and we need to understand that we weren't there. or experimental or observational science using your five senses and the present what you can directly observe, test, repeat. there's a big differencdifferenc e between those two. that's not what's being taught in a public schools and that's what kids are being taught to think critically and correctly about the origins issue.

it's also important to understand what talking about creation and evolution both involve historical science and observational science. the role of observational science is this, they can be used to confirm or otherwise once historical science based on one's starting point. when you think about the debate topic and what i a friend concerning creation, if our origins of historical science based on the bible, the bible's account of origins is true, then they should be protection from this using observational science, and there are. for instance, based on the bible we would expect of an evidence concerning and intelligence confirming and intelligence produced like. life. would expect to find evidence confirming -- the bible says god made animals and plants after the kind and find each time produces its own, not that one can changes into another. you'd expect to find evidence confirming a global part of evidence confirming one race of humans because we all go back to

adam and eve biologically. that would mean there is one race but evidence confirming that god gave different language. evidence confirming a young universe. i can go to all of those but a couple of them will look at briefly. after their kind, evidence confirming that. in the creation museum we have a display featuring replicas of darwin's finches. darwin collected finches and took them back to england and we see the different species, the different big sizes. from the specimens that darwin of dan, he actually haunted these things and how do you explain this? in is not actually he came up with this diagram here, a tree. and he actually said, i think. so he was talking about different species and maybe does a species came some common ancestor. when it comes to finches we actually would agree as creationist that different finches of species came from a

common ancestor, a finches want to have to come from. see, darwin wasn't just thinking about species. darwin had a much bigger picture in mind. when you look at the origin of species and read that book you will find he made this statement. from sexual in any media form, both animals and plants may been developed and if we admit this we must likewise admit that all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from someone primordial form. so you can bind it to the window as an evolutionary tree of life. that all life has risen from some primordial form. when you consider classification system, we would say as creationist and with many creation scientists who have researched this a lot of reasons i would say the kind in genesis really is more at the family level of classification. for instance, is one dog time, one cat kind. even though the different

species. that would mean you do need anywhere near the number of animals on the ark is people thing. you would need all the species of dogs, just to. and based on the biblical account in genesis one, creationists have drawn up what they believe is a creation orchard. they're saying look, there's great variation in the genetics of dogs and finches into one. overtime to quit after noah's flood you would expect there were two dogs. you could end up with different species of dogs it is there's an incredible amount of variability in the genes of any creature. you would expect these different species up here but there's limits. dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches. as creationist i maintain that observational science confirms this model based on the bible. for instance, take dogs, okay, in a scientific paper dated

january 2014, that's this year, scientists working at the university of california stated this, we provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dog, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations. they put this diagram in a paper. that diagram is very similar to this diagram that creationists proposed based upon the creation account in genesis. in other words, you have a common dog that gives rise to the different species of dogs and that's exactly what we are saying here. in the creation museum we show the finches here and you'll see the finches with a different beaks. by the way, there is more variation in the dog south bend are in these finches. yet the dogs, that's an abuse as an example of evolution but the finches are. particularly in the public school textbooks. students are taught see the changes occurring? here's another problem that we've got. not only housed award sides been

hijacked by secularists, i believe the word evolution has been hijacked by secularists. the word evolution has been hijacked using what i call a bait and switch. let me explain to you, the word evolution has been used in public school textbooks and we often see the documen documentso on. its use for observable changes that we would agree with continues for unobservable changes such as molecules demand. let me claim was going on. i was a science teacher in public school and i know what the students were taught and to check public school textbooks anyway. students are taught today look, there's all these different animals, plants but they're all part of this great victory of like to go back to some primordial form. we see changes, changes in finches, changes in dogs and so. we don't deny the changes. you see different species of finches, different species of dog. they put altogether but that's what you don't observe. you don't observe the. that's belief that there. that's the historical science.

i will say was wrong. what you do observe, you do observe different species of dog, different species of finches, but then there are limits and you don't see one kind of change into another. actually we are told that if you teach creation in the public schools, they are teaching religion. if you teach evolution in science but i will say what you meant actually the creation model here based upon the bible, observational science conference, this is what you observe. you don't observe history. it's a public school textbook that are teaching i believe imposing it on students and the need to be teaching them observational science to understand the realm of what's happening. what we found is that public school textbooks presented evolution of science but reject the orchard as religion to observational science conference the creation or trigger public school textbooks are rejecting

observational science and imposing a naturalistic religion on students. the word evolution has been hijacked using a pagan switch to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary believes as observational science. let me introduce you to another scientist, a michigan state university, great sciences, known for cauldron e. coli in the lab. he found there was some e. coli that seemed to develop the ability to grow on citrate, but richard lenski is mentioned in book and it's called evolution in the lead. the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution, and there are those who say hey, this is against the creationist. jerry coyne from university of chicago said richard lenski system is in a poke in you for antievolutionist. he said the thing i like most is that it said you can get his complex traits evolving

accommodation of analyzing events. but is it a poke in the eye? is it really seen complex traits evolving? what does it mean that some of these bacteria are able to grow on citrate? let me introduce you to another biblical creationist who is a scientist. >> my name is doctor andrew fabich. i do research on e. coli in the intestine. i have published in secular journals from america stood for microbiology, including infection in unity. and applied environment of micro biology as well as several others. i insider bravely in the journal and while i was taught nothing but evolution, i don't accept that position but i do my research from a creation perspective. when i look at the evidence,

people cite e. coli supposedly evolving over 30 years, over 3000 generations in the lab. people say that it is now able to grow on citrate. i don't deny that it grows on citrate but is not any kind of information. the information is already there but it's just a switch that gets turned on and off and that's what they reported in there. there's nothing you. >> students did to be told what's really going on. certainly there's a change but it's not change necessary for molecules-to-man. we could look at other prediction. what about evidence concerning one race? women look at the human population we see differences. based on darwin's idea of human evolution of presented in the descent of man, darwin did teach there were lower races and high races. would you believe that back in the 1900, one of the most popular biology textbooks used in the public schools in america taught this. at the present time there exists upon earth five races, and

finally the highest type of all the connotations represented by the civilized white inhabitants of europe and america. could you imagine if that it was in the public schools today? that's what was taught. based on darwin's idea that are wrong. you have a wrong foundation. you're going to have a wrong worldview. had they started from the bible and from the creation account in the bible, what does it teach? wwhere all the sins of adam and eve. we go to differently which is so different people group forms, but we would expect it say that means that biologically there's only one race of humans. i mentioned doctor venter before. you remember in the year 2000 this was headline news. what we read was this. they put together a draft of the entire signals of human genome and unanimously declared there's only one race, the human race. who would have guessed? but you see that we have observational science confirming

the creation account, not confirming at all darwin's ideas. there's much more that could be set on each of these topics. obviously, you can't do that in the short time like this. you could do a lot of research. i suggest you visit a website for a lot more information. the debate topic, is creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era? i said we need to define the term. particularly the term science and the term evolution, and i believe we need to understand how they're being used to impose an anti-god religion on generations of unsuspecting students. i keep emphasizing we do need to understand the difference between experimental or observational science and historic assigns. the secularists don't like me doing this because they don't want to admit that there's a belief aspect to what they are saying, and it is and they can't get away from it. let illustrate this with the statement from bill nye spent you can show the earth is not flat. you can show the earth is not

10,000 years old spent i agree. there is a video on galileo spacecraft showing the earth and speed it up of course the spinning. you can observe that. you can't observe the age of the earth. you don't see that. you see again, i emphasize there's a big difference between a struggle sides talking about the past and occupational science talking about the present. i believe what's happening is this, students are being indoctrinated by the confusion of terms. the hijacking of towards science and the hijacking of the word evolution in a bait and switch. let me illustrate further with this video clip. because here i assert that bill nye is equating observational science with historical sites. and i also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference. >> apparently people with these deeply held religious beliefs, they embrace that whole literal interpretation of the bible as written in english. as a worldview, and at the same time they accept aspirin, and

about drugs, airplanes. but they're able to hold these two worldviews and this is a mystery. >> actually i suggest you it's not in history. what i'm talking and about its, aspirin, smoke detectors, jet planes, that's from the observational science guidebook. when you talk about creation and thousands of years of the age of the earth, i'm willing to admit that. when bill nye talking about aspirin, and about it, jet planes, does a great job of that, i used to enjoy watching them on tv, too. that bill nye is the observational science can. when you talk and evolution in millions of years, i'm challenging that is bill nye the historical science guy and i challenge the evolutionists to admit the belief aspect of their particular worldview. at the christian museum we're only too willing to admit a police based upon the bible but we also teach people the

difference between belief in what one can actually observe an experiment within the present i believe we are teaching people to think critically and to think in the right terms of how science. i believe it's the creationists that should be educating the kids out there because we are teaching them the right way to think. we admit our origins of historical science is based upon the bible but i'm just challenginchallenging evolutiond get ugly aspects of evolution and be up front about the difference. i am only too willing to admit my historical science based on the bible. let me go on to define the term creation as we use it. by creation, we mean here at answers in genesis integration using them would mean the account based on the bible. yes, i coul did uses as little history, as jesus did. here at the creation museum we walked people through that history. we walk them through creation, a perfect creation that god made adam and eve, land, animal kind, sea creatures and so on. and then sent and death entered

the world so that was no death before sending. that means happen to have billions of dead things before man sinned. and then catastrophe of noah's flood together was a global flood you expect to find billions of dead things all over the us. have to say that because our supporters would want me to. what do you find? billions of dead things buried down in ira in the rock that goe different languages and he gave different people grew. this is a ethical logic or biological history as recorded in the bible so this is consider what happened in the past that explains the present. and, of course, that got some step in his you, jesus christ died on the cross, race and the dead and one day there'll be a new heaven and a new earth to come. and not only is this an entertaining of history to explain the geology, i'll get, i started to protect the present to the past but is also a

foundation for our old worldview. for instance, in matthew 19 when jesus -- male and female and said shot a man and father, and they will be one flesh. he quoted from genesis as little history, god invented marriage by the way. that's where march comes from and to be a man and woman. not only marriage. ultimate every single biblical doctrine of guilty directly or indirectly is found in genesis. why is there seen in the world? genesis. why is their death? genesis. why do we wear clothes? genesis. it'it's a very affordable to its foundation to all christian doctrine and juicy would look at that what i call the seven seas of history that we walked people through your at the museum, take about how it all connects together. a perfect creation, perfect again in the future. sin and death into the world and that's why god son died on the cross. and to conquer death and offer us to salvation to a reminder

that the flood was a judgment because of man's weakness but at the same time and message of god's greatness and salvation. jesus christ said i am the door. we make no apology about the fact that what we are on about is this. it you can this with your mouth to lord jesus, you will be saved. as soon as i say that people say see, if you allow creation in schools, you have students hear about it, this is religion. let me illustrate this, talking about a recent battle in texas over textbooks in the public school. a newspaper report said this, textbook and classroom curriculum battles have long range indexes hitting creation is, those who see god's hand, i guess academics, stop right there. notice creationists, academic, creations. gracious can't be. scientists. it's the way things are worded out there. it's an indoctrination that is

going on. you're talking about what you observed or are you telling that your beliefs about the past? kathy known as the present of the texas freedom network and she vocally has spoken out, she is spoken out about this textbook battle better in texas. the mission statement of the organization she is president of sense the texas air network advances the mainstream agenda provision and individual liberties to counter the religious right. religious freedom, individual liberties. then she makes this statement. science education, what does you by science? should be based on mass insight education not on personal ideological beliefs upon corporate reviews. they want religious liberty and not personal ideological belief? iso this. public school textbooks are using the same wer word signs fr observational and the struggle size. they define science as

naturalism and they present molecules the men evolution a second there imposing the religion of naturalism on generations of students. they are imposing their ideology on the students that everything is fine by natural processes. that is religion. what does she mean by religious liberty? they tolerate their religion. about is really about 40. it's more than just science or evolution or creation. it's about who is the authority in this world, man or god? you start with naturalism, then what about morals? who decides what is right and wrong? subjected. marriage from what you wanted to be? get rid of old people, why not? are costing us a lot of money. abortion, get rid of spirit cats, spare kids. if you start from god's word and our moral answer to god decide right and wrong. mayors, one man, one woman. sanctity of life. abortion is killing a human being. we do see the collapse of christian morality in our culture and increasing moral

relativism because generations of kids are being taught the religion of naturalism and that the bible can't be trusted. so again i say, creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. i'm a science teacher. i want to see kids taught. i love science but i want to see more doctors -- if we teach them the whole universe is a result of natural processes and not designed by creator god, they might be looking in the wrong places or have the wrong idea when you're looking at the creation in regard to how you develop technology. because if you're looking at just random processes, that could totally influenced the way they think. if they understand it was a perfect world marred by sin that could have a great effect on how they didn't look for overcoming diseases and problems in the world. i want children to be taught the right foundation that there's a god who creates them, loves them, who died on the cross for them, and that they are special, made in the image of god.

>> take it, mr. hammond. we can applaud mr. hamm's presentation. [applause] >> and you know, it did occur to me when you had my old friend larry king up there, you could've just asked him. he's been around a long time and she's a smart guy. he could probably answer for all of us. [laughter] now, let's all give attention to mr. nye as he gives us his 30 minute presentation. >> take you very much. mr. ham, i learned something, thank you. let's take you back around to the question at hand. does content creation model holds up? is a viable? so for me, of course, well, take a look. we are here in kentucky on layer upon layer upon layer of

limestone. i stopped at the side of the road today and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there. now come in these many, many layers, in this vicinity of kentucky, there are coral animals, fossil. and when you look at it closely, you can see that they lived their entire lives. they lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that. when the water conditions are correct. so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. how could those animals have lived their entire life and form these layers in just 4000 years? there isn't enough time since mr. ham's flood for this limestone that were standing on to have come into existence. my scientific colleagues go to places like greenland, the arctic. they go to antarctica and they drilled into the ice with hollow

drill bits. it's not that extraordinary. many of you have probably done it yourself, doing other things to put locks and doors, for example. we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. and these are made of snow. and by long tradition it is called snow ice. snow ice forms over the winter as snowflakes fall and are crushed down by subsequent layers. they are crushed together and track -- trapped in little bubbles and the bubbles need to be ancient atmosphere. there's nobody running around with a hypodermic needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 snow, winter, summer cycles. how could it be that just 4000 years ago all of this ice

formed? let's just run some numbers. this is some scene from lovely and arctic. let's say we have 680,000 layers of snow ice and 4000 or since the great flood. that would mean we need 170 winter summer cycles every year for the last 4000 years. i mean, wouldn't someone have noticed that? wow. wouldn't someone have noticed that there's winter summer, winter summer, 170 times one year? if we go to california we find enormous bristlecone pines. punch. some of them are over 6000 years old. 6800 years old. there's a famous street in sweden, old tjikko, is 9500 years old. how could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood

just 4000 years ago? you can try this yourself, everybody. i don't mean to be mean to trees, but get a sapling and put it under water for a year. it will not survive in general, nor will it seat. they just won't make it. so how could these trees be that old if the earth is only 4000 years old? when they go to the grand canyon which is an astonishing place and i recommend to everybody in the world to someday visit the grand canyon, you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks. and if there was this enormous flood that you speak of, wouldn't there have been churning, bubbling and roiling? how would these things have settled out? your claim that they settled out in extraordinary short amount of time is for me not satisfactory. you can look at these rocks. you can look at rocks that are younger. you can go to see shores where there is sand. this is what geologists on the outside you, study the rate at

which soil is deposited the end of rivers and delta's. we can see that it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone. also in this picture you can see where one type of sediment has intruded on another's die. if that was uniform, wouldn't we expect it all to be even without intrusion? furthermore you can find place in the grand canyon we see an ancient riverbed on that side going to an ancient riverbed on that side, and the colorado river has cut through it. and by the way, if this great flood drained through the grand canyon, wouldn't there have been a grand canyon on every continent? how can we not have grand canyon's everywhere if this water drained away in this extraordinary short amount of time, 4000 years? when you look at these layers carefully, you find these

beautiful fossils. when i say beautiful, i am inspired by them. they are remarkable because we are looking at the past. you find down low, you will find what you might consider is rudimentary see animals. up above you will find a famous trilobites. about that you might find some clams, oysters. in about that you find some mammals. you never ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. you never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one. if it all happened such an extremely amount passionate short amount of time, if the water drained away just like that, wouldn't we expect is in some turbulence. anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that, one example of that anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you get they would embrace you. you would be a hero. you would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere. people have looked and looked

and looked, have not found a single one. here's an interesting thing. these are fossil skulls that people have found all around the world. which is by no means representative of all the fossil schools that have been found but these are all over the place. if you were to look at these, i can assure you that any of them is a guerrilla. right? if as mr. ham and his associates claim, there was just a man and then everybody else, there were just humans and all other species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls? how did all these skulls get all of the earth in these extraordinary fashion? where would you put us? i can tell you we are on there, and i encourage you when you go home to look it up.

now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with mr. ham's worldview is that this giant boat, very large wooden ship, went the ground safely on a mountain in what we now call the middle east. and so places like australia are populated then by animals who somehow managed to get from the middle east all the way to australia in the last 4000 years. now, that to me is an extraordinary claim. we would expect them somewhere between the middle east and australia, we would expect to find evidence of kangaroos. we would expect to find some fossils, some bones in the last 4000 years. somebody would've been hopping along there and died along the way and we would find it. furthermore, there's a claim that there was a land bridge that allowed of these animals to get from asia all the way to the continent of australia.

of that land bridge has disappeared, has disappeared in the last 4000 years. no navigator, no diver, no u.s. navy submarine, no one is ever detected any evidence of this, let alone any fossils of kangaroos. so your expectation is not met. it doesn't seem to hold up. so let's see, if there are 4000 years since ken ham slide, -- ken ham's flood. and let's say there are 7000 kinds, today the very, very lowest estimate is that there are about 8.7 million species. but a much more reasonable estimate is its 50 million, or even wanted and. you start counting viruses and bacteria and all the beatles that must be in the tropical rainforest that we haven't found. so we will take a number which i think is pretty reasonable, 16 million species today.

okay. if these came from 7000 times -- kinds, let's say we have 7000 subtracted from 15 million, that's 15993. and 4000 years, we have acidified and recorder days a year, we would expect to find 11 new species every day. so you go out into your garden. you would just find a different bird, a new bird, you'd find a different kind of bird, a whole new species of bird every day. a new species of fish, a new species of organisms you can't see until. this would be enormous news. the last 4000 years, you would've seen these changes among us. so the sense in an choir i would imagine would carry a call right next to the weather report. today's new species, it would list these 11 every day. but we see no evidence of that. test of evidence of these

species. there simply isn't enough time. as you may know i graduated from engineering school and i got a job at boeing. i worked on 747s. everybody relax. i was very well supervised. everything is fine. there's a tube in the 747 i kind of think of as my cube, but that aside, i try with the highways of washington state quite a bit. i was a young guy. i had a motorcycle. i used to go mountain climbing in washington state and oregon. you can drive along and find these enormous boulders on top of the ground. enormous rocks, huge, sitting on top of the ground. out of their in regular academic pursuits, regular geology, people have discovered that figures to be a lake in what is now montana. which we commonly refer to as lake missoula. it's not there now. but the evidence if i may,

overwhelmingly, and so an ice dam would form at lake missoula and once in a while it would break it would build up and pray and/or multiple floods in my old state of washington state but before we can't let me just say, go seahawks. that was very gratifying. very gratifying for me. anyway, you drive along the road and there are these rocks. if as is asserted here at this facility that the heavy rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event, the big rocks and especially their shape, instead of aerodynamic, would be hydrodynamic, water changes shape as water flows past. you would expect them to sink to the bottom. majorities in those rocks right on the surface and there's no shortage of them. as you go driving in washington state oregon, they are readily available. so how could those be there if the earth is just 4000 years old? how could he be there if this one flood caused that?

another remarkable thing i would like everybody to consider, along, inherent in this worldview is that somehow, no one in his family -- no one and his family were able to build the wooden ship that would house 14,000 individuals. there were 7000 kinds and there's a boy and a girl for each one of those. so it was about 14,000 people. and these people were unskilled as far as anybody knows, they will never build a wooden ship before. furthermore, they had to get all these animals on there and they had to feed them and understand that mr. ham has some explanation for that, which i frankly find extraordinary, but this is the premise of the bit. and we can then run a test, a scientific test. people in the early 1900s built an extraordinary, large wooden ship, the wyoming.

it was a six match at school, the largest one ever built. it had a motor on it for winching cables and stuff. but this boat had great difficulty. it was not as big as the titanic but it was a very long ship. it would twist in the sea but it would twist this way, this way and this way. and in all the twisting it leaked. it leaked like crazy. the crew could not keep the ship tried to indicate it eventually foundered and sank, loss of all 14 hands. so there were 14 crewmen aboard a ship built i very, very skilled shipwrights in new england. these guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding and they couldn't build a boat as big as the ark is claimed to have been. is that reasonable? is that possible? that the best shipbuilders in the world couldn't do what ate

unskilled people, men and wise were able to do. if you visit the national zoo in washington, d.c., it's 163 acres, and they have 400 species. by the way, this picture that you sing was taken by spacecraft in space orbiting the earth. a few told my grandfather, let alone my father, that we have that capability, they would've been amazed. that capability comes from our fundamental understanding of gravity, material science, physics. and life science were you good looking. this place as often as any zoo, is often deeply concerned and criticized for out treats its animals. they have 400 species on 163 acres. 66 factors. is it reasonable that noah and his colleagues, his family were able to maintain 14,000 animals and of themselves and feed them aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone has ever been able

to build? here's the thing. what we want in science, science has practiced out on the outside, is an ability to predict. we want to have a natural law that is so obvious and clear, so well understood that we can make predictions about what will happen. we can predict that we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of washington, d.c. we can predict that if we provide this much room for an elephant, it will live health fully for a certain amount of time. so i'll give you an example. in the explanation provided by traditional science of how we came to be, we find, as mr. ham alluded to many times in his recent remarks, we find a sequence of animals in what agenda is called the fossil record. when they look at the layers

that you find and get the key, you look at them carefully, you find a sequence of animals, a succession. and as one might expect when you're looking at old records, there's some pieces seem to be missing. a gap. so scientists got to thinking about this. there are lungfish that jump from pond to pond in florida and end up in people's swimming pools. and there are amphibians, frogs and toads. so people wondered if there wasn't a fossil or an organism, an animal that lived that the characteristics of both. people over the years have found that in canada there was clearly a fossil marsh in a place that used to be a swamp, dried out, and they found all kinds of happy swamp fossils there, firms, so on, organisms, animals, fish that were recognized. people realize that with the age of the rocks as computed by

traditional scientists, with the age of the rocks this would be a reasonable place to look for an animal, a fossil of an animal that lived there. and, indeed, scientists found it. this fish lizard guy. and they found several specimens. this wasn't one individual. in other words, they made a prediction that this animal would be found and it was found. so far, mr. ham and his worldview, the ken ham creation model, does not have this capability. it cannot make predictions and show results. here's an extraordinary one that i find, i find remarkable. there are certain fish, the top man knows, that have the remarkable ability to have sex with other fish, traditional fish sex, and they can have sex

with themselves. one of the old questions in life science, everybody, one of the old sort of chin stroke was is why does any organism, whether you're an ash tree, ac gently, a squid, why does anybody have sex? ..