day, there will be discussion on prescription drug abuse at 2:45 p.m. eastern. general sitting in the witness chair, they tend to font over him --fawn over him. i noticed that with petraeus, i noticed it with gates in his hearings when he was nominated as secretary of defense by george w. bush. they were so thrilled he wasn't ask the, they didn't really hard questions and a lot of those pertained to his past activities. he was involved in iran-contra. he was a very prominent figure in the cia at the time. they required intelligence that iran was somehow moderating and that intelligence was

conveniently forthcoming. >> former capitol hill staffer mike writes about washington in "the party is over." on c-span's at 8:00 "duende." a."q and >> it was a civil rights march that begins in memphis and ends in jackson. in the three weeks, you can make the argument that the civil rights movement approaches is crossroads. the call for black power is first heard on the merit of march. it immediately generates controversy, it immediately generates a great swelling of enthusiasm among local black people and in a lot of ways it ignites a new direction in black politics. those changes might have happened over the course of time

anyway, but what the meredith was dramatize it. it brought leaders from all over the country and put them into this laboratory of black politics as it moves through mississippi. he created dramatic moments that highlighted the key divisions, the key tensions, and the key strengths that had animated the civil rights movement. >> a look at the civil rights movement sunday night at 9:00. the civil, more about rights movement. the story and peniel joseph will take your calls and tweets on the qb -- on book tv. you still have time to comment on february's guest, bonnie morris. >> next, british writer and

broadcaster jane little on the media cover -- coverage of religion. this is held at the university of colorado in boulder. it is a little more than an hour. >> thank you. i'm not sure how i follow that glowing introduction. it is a privilege to be with you tonight and i am grateful to stuart her -- professor for inviting me to come here to share some of my experiences in covering religion and the ways in which i have seen the beat change, rise, fall, evolve over the last two decades of my career. it has been largely focused on corunna -- religion as a correspondent, editor, and presenter, or host as you say here. i am very interested in hearing

on coverage of religion from all parts of the world. i've come full circle. stewart, who helped first launch me on my path, though i doubt he knows that -- it was while doing an undergraduate dissertation that i read his illuminating book on the subject. i read it on a beach at uc santa barbara, as i recall. that certainly accentuated the positive qualities. it even my interest in religion, the media, and their interactions. it did not inspire me to follow in the footsteps of pat robertson. but i created my own different version of electronic evangelism, when i set up with the bbc world service. it took some zeal for the subject, a dollop of ambition, and a dose of faith. a fellow journalism student and astrologer, who insisted on doing my birth chart, told me that as an extreme sagittarian,

i was destined to become a preacher, teacher, or journalist. i guess i combined all three. i have always had a fascination for the role that religion plays in public life, particularly in america, where it is richly paradoxical, the nation with the soul of the church, where religion and politics are intimate bedfellows, and where the separation of church and state remain sacrosanct. i moved here to study that with a -- as a postgraduate with the emphasis on the then powerful religious right, and i continue to do so as a reporter. being a religion reporter was just like being a student, learning something new everyday, extending my horizons. only there were no exams. i got to travel widely, and the pay was better. marginally. in the early 1990's when i was an undergraduate at cambridge, only one of two people in my left-leaning king's college leading the unfashionable

religious studies, i was often asked at parties by many british students, why i would choose such a subject. was it because i wanted to become a nun? being a priest was not an option, though it was about to become one. a few years later at a christmas party, only weeks after i begin this new trial beat of religious reporter, i was asked by a slightly drunk colleague, why are you interested in religion? is it because you are religious yourself? i would get that many times over the years. incidentally, a political correspondent did not get asked how he voted, as it was not deemed to affect the reporting. the reporter never inserted him or herself into a news story, except under extraordinary circumstances.

i mentioned these encounters because it gives you a flavor of the bewilderment and even the suspicion in a secular 1990's britain as to why anyone would be interested in religion, if it was not for vocational reasons, if they did not have an agenda. i would always strongly denied that i had any vested religious interest and the subject and then i would embark on a passionate explanation as to why religion mattered in the world, in a real and vital way, and how we could not understand culture, society, and much of global politics, without first starting with what motivated most of the people on the planet, which was their search for meaning, deeply held beliefs, and practices. while i did not become a nun or priest, this was my secular church. and they were my congregation. in the case of colleagues, they were not an easy convert to the

value of reporting religion in the news. quite the opposite. in 1997, i returned to london from studying in the united states, and i was working freelance for the bbc as a general reporter. i spoke with editors, i think farsighted editors, who asked me to try a new role as religion reporter. they had little backing, knew it was a risky proposition, and there were few resources thrown my way. i was given a desk, a quick tour of the studio, and four weeks to see if i could find some interesting news to justify the post. to put it in context, or was a religion department at the bbc, which produced well-regarded tv and radio programs on religion and ethics for the domestic audience. there was a department at the bbc world service, which was well staffed with reporters and had several programs a week. some of you might remember "focus on faith" reporting religion, heart and soul.

there was no correspondent there to cover religion as part of mainstream news, which was at the heart of what the world service did and does. in other words, it was a subject that was fenced off and clearly marked, "religion." many thought it should remain so. it was something that they had to wear to fulfill requirements, but should not invade the superior news space. at that point, they considered it something close to the parish news, churchy, and not to be taken too seriously, or in some cases, not at all. there were some producers who were so anti-god, as they saw it, that i knew it would be virtually pointless trying to get a piece on the program, at least, short of, the pope is dead. [laughter] way was the one , religion story that the bbc dedicated vast resources to for many years before they provided

us with the news. by which time, the powers that be could not afford it, and cnn got the best spot. i spent several weeks up the ladder. as a further aside, i am never given the luxury of that in broadcasting, so i'm relishing footnote potentials here. it was similar to the recent death and funeral of nelson mandela. both he and john paul were towering figures whose passing sparked much reverential reflection on their lives. in these cases, as well as world -- royal deaths, births, and weddings, the bbc relishes their role as the nation's, and to some extent, the globe's, world broadcaster. the purveyor of meaning to the masses. anyway, back to my earlier point about ingrained hostility towards religion in the news

environment. religion was held to a different standard. i had to prove i did not have an agenda. i had to work extra hard at the morning meeting to show why a story was relevant. meanwhile, an output editor would reveal personal bias against a new story, in ways that probably would not have happened with an art piece, and certainly would not have done so with one on politics. i do not mean to make my colleagues sound stupid. they were not. many were older, schooled in 1960's britain, and had embraced the secularization hypothesis. religion was anti-progress, and society as a developing got more educated, would relegate f to the-- belie midsection at the back of the bookstore, or in our case, to the bottom of the news roundup. in those weeks, i was often stopped in the quarter by one cardigan wearing hack with the same joke, how is god today? [laughter] the joke soon wore thin. at the other end of the

spectrum, there were one or two in the morning news meetings who took my subject seriously, indeed, i was seen as a adjunct theologian. i'll never forget one 9:00 a.m. meeting, packed with those who ran the language services, mostly middle-age men, and they were exchanging views on how to cover the death, just announced, of the cambodian dictator, and one man, a decent local journalist, turned to me and suggested that i write a one minute news piece on the problems of evil. [clears throat] [laughter] all eyes were trained on me, the new girl, and i took a deep breath, and said that i thought we might need a four-part documentary slot for that. it was a milestone of sorts. many in the room saw the man's suggestion as mildly absurd, and as a test of my news judgment, which i guess i passed.

and then on, things got a little easier, though not less hectic because i was on a mission to prove that religion was as interesting and relevant as politics, that, in fact, it overlapped with an undergirded political events, and i had for weeks to prove it. i'd no idea what was expected of me so i would come in at 5:00 a.m. to record features and turnout news dispatch on multiple subjects. it was everything from buddhist monks rioting in thailand, to sectarian tensions ring in cozumel, to jesuit astronomers gazing at the stars near rome, to a mormon temple going up in northern england, which i traveled to, and where i sought the views of the locals. i spoke with an old man, wearing a cloth cap, who looks up at the structure and proclaimed, it is a bloody eyesore. [laughter]

naturally, is the last day of my trial. don, the same cardigan hack came up to me and i based my cell for the anticipated, how is god today? instead he said, it is quite interesting, religion, isn't it? he said, i thought you would just be reporting on the archbishop of canterbury's sermons. my first convert. it was quite a victory to savor. it gave pause for thought about this as religious news. i would cover many topics as editor and presenter, and they would break down into two basic categories. the obvious religion story. the pope is dead. the gay bishop is elected.

and a category two-story. how and why religion might fit into events unfolding in parts of the world? there were overlaps, not least in the election of the first openly gay bishop in the world. that was an event that would mark a key moment in the culture wars, which sent shockwaves around the community. the new digital media was speeding up the news and amplifying the reaction. the aftereffects are still being felt, not least, and other denominations where the gay issue had been fought over internally, mirroring what is happening in wider society. just this week, we saw the u.s. supreme court place a hold on gay marriages in utah. let me say that again, gay marriages in utah. if you had told me, as i watched

this, that 10 years later a conservative mormon utah would become the 17th u.s. state to allow gay marriage, i would be rendered speechless, so dramatic was the cultural shift here, and elsewhere in the last decade. more than a dozen countries have gay marriage, and is about to become the law in england and wales. journalists are scrambling to keep up with the rapid flow of events. there is no line between the two types of stories, religion, and yes religion plays a part, but as a general, i found a category two-story to be the more interesting, one where i can add value. that was where the bbc world service came into it. it takes those longer formats with more air time to allow the sort of space required to display in issues of identity sectarianism, where religion or , theology might or might not play a part in stories of the i got to make many

documentaries on anti-semitism in europe, on the dalai lama, on revolution and reform in islam in turkey, and elsewhere. that was in the year 2000. he gave me room to explore, ask the questions, and suggest tentative answers. my thesis was that reformists were on the top in iran. that was undermined, when many were jailed. even with the news bulletins, i would get the second slot on the story, the one they give some context to the news piece above it. the domestic news bulletins at the bbc did not have that sort of luxury, neither do they overhear. the world service i jointed. it was a deeply rewarding, enriching, and challenging a few years. i should mention that the newsroom manager did call me in and tell me to come back again

after those first four weeks, and another, and another, so i remained on short-term contract, now practically the only contract found there, sprinting constantly from one story to the next, in my bid to prove mind, and the beat's work. i would made staff, eventually. i collapsed with an exhaustion related illness. that september i would be lying on my sofa at home, watching the news event that would work for all others, and statically underlying the value of having a religious specialist on staff. the associated press all ready had one. may other soon added them. it certainly thrust itself into the news agenda. the tragic events of september 11 had the unintended consequence of creating more religion related jobs, at least, for a while. those were the halcyon days for religious correspondence herein

there was a widespread attempt to understand islam, as a security threat and a religion, one which turned out to be far more complicated. that was given much air and print time. a lot of the coverage was very negative of islam, particularly in the press, and by politicians who painted them as the bogeyman. they were grappling with a phenomenon that the western media had not spent much time on. that was swiftly joined by the scandal of the sexual abuse of children by roman catholic clergy, one that was broken in the united states by a team of reporters at the boston globe, with the expertise and resources to expose the abuse and cover-up. there were the criminal prosecutions of priests that prompted other victims to become forward. a wider pattern became clear. the scandal rapidly spread to other nations, notably to

catholic europe, where the governments of countries such as ireland, produced damming report into systematic cover-ups within the church hierarchy. that story, more than any other i can think of, shows the power of an informed and well resourced media. a challenge to religious authority in a profound way. it changed reverential attitudes toward priest. it forced changes in the way that the church did business. many catholics voted with their feet and left the pews. i should say this grace and a secular sphere, because far from being quietly demoted, he was given an appointment in rome. the media coverage was so critical of the roman catholic

leadership, which continue to obfuscate, to a lesser or greater degree, that few could ever imagine a reversal of its fortunes. more on that later. in the meantime, pulled an addict was, as the cardinal had been the watchdog for a quarter of a century. he was not the man to open doors and reveal a church ready to embrace transparency or accommodate modernity. instead, his controversial moves, such as his speech that upsets him and he muslims, and his reinstatement of a holocaust denying bishop, which upset jews, we enforce the mainstream media's view of religion as out of touch. by the time of benedict, who

assumed the throne in 2005, editors in newsrooms were starting to lose interest in the religion beat. one american reporter, who covered religion for many years, reflected that the secular media was largely focused on the public sphere, looked on religion as religion. they were more focused on the type two-story. the problem with that approach, he mused, was at the fortunes of the god beat, depends on the ups and downs of the relationship between religion and politics. like me, he was consumed for a while with explaining islam, reporting on gay bishops, evangelicals in politics, the child abuse crisis. at some point, editor's interest waned. he believes that it was because another dreaded 9/11 type event did not happen. it was also because islam turned

out to be complicated. editors went off of it because the categories of western discourse did not fit neatly, and because the resources needed to try to understand them, were not there. he and i both had editors request more coverage on islam, surely a subject of greater importance now, given the rapid and confusing developments in islam in the middle east. in his case, budgets are no longer there. in my case, i was no longer there. i let the religion beat in 2006 to work as a washington correspondent. i left it in safe hands. christopher was a very good reporter, who was a theology graduate. he had the expertise and did great reporting, not least on

the former archbishop who said that islam should have a place in britain. he decided to leave and pursue a vocation as a priest. it was a loss to journalism, but should be again to the church, which needs more priests who understand how the news media works. the bbc faced with another round of budget cuts used his exit as a chance to quietly close the post. there is no religion reporter at the bbc world service, where the largest audiences are still in africa, a continent were audiences do care deeply about religion, where it has an obvious role in shaping identity. there is no religion department at all. that takes repeating. no religion department at all. even in a hostile climate that i joined, it seemed to be subject worth covering, even if some thought it believed in its own

section. i think for a publicly funded body, it is a sorry state of affairs. there is one remaining program, and that his heart and soul. it is out of the world service. the producer who makes it is out of manchester and does a great job on a tiny budget. here's my opportunity for shameless plug. you can hear my interview with president obama's spiritual advisor. he has written a daily devotion for the president every day. he tells me about the seemingly most secular president and his deep personal faith. elsewhere, a professional religion beat has struck. one news team who had a complete religion section, no longer does. to a large extent, the fortunes

of reporters have risen and fallen in ways that mirror those of the news outlets that they work for, as advertising revenues have shrunk. the religion beat is almost always one of the first to go. clearly, i don't believe that religious speech should be the first to go. such is the hard reality. they're still reporters at the new york times, times of london, and they do a great job on a smaller budget. the bbc does a good job for domestic tv and radio audiences. meanwhile, while there is no religion reporter in raleigh, north carolina, there are still part-time religion reporters elsewhere who split labors between beats. he is now the managing editor of religious news service, which

without interesting religious stories each day, funded by donations and grants from institutions that care about religion coverage. the foundation gave a generous grants to the public radio program of the world, which allowed me to set up a religion editor position that oversaw the creation of more adept coverage. they follow islam in a changing middle east. recently they reflected on how the obituaries for al qaeda in the wake of the arab spring were premature, to say the least. the sobering last line was, the last year was a good one for al qaeda. the landscape has changed beyond recognition since i started at the bbc.

there are few religion specialists left. they include accomplished once such as bruce clark, a reporter at reuter's. there's a great need for information on religion. i lament the passing of so many colleagues. i see pockets of resurrection, not least at the battered and bruised boston globe, which announced that it hired a vatican watcher. the media is reflecting a major shift in the west from religious affiliation to a more individual quest for meaning and direct experience. it is clearly shaping and informing that shift. there are many here in the audience more qualified than i am to talk about how that is

redefining meaning and practice. what i would say is that the democratization of media, as reflected in the world of tweeting and blogging coming is having a positive impact on the ways in which spiritual expenses are being covered. i say spiritual experience because there is a more immediate engagement in the fluid form of spiritual expression that to the traditional media has had trouble keeping up with. i'm talking about the religious outside the box of. if the traditional media was slow to see the importance of religion in the public political sphere. religion as part of a so-called hard news story, then it is slower to grasp subtle resolution in the secular west, where many dropped the religion of their childhood, but not the believing in something other.

i will give you one snapshot of a changing britain, as captured in a new podcast series. i was asked to present a program in october of things unseen. it is produced by an x bbc staffer for an independent company and funded by a charity. it focused on audience interested in faith, spirituality, the idea that there may be more to life than meets the eye. the program recorded on london's southbank was a panel discussion about spiritual believes of modern britain. the survey found that while britain may be opposed christian nation, the former archbishop's words, not mine, it is far from a nation of atheists. spiritual believes are found across the board. the report found that more than half of the british leave that spiritual forces can influence

human thoughts or actions or the world around them. more than one third of the nonreligious hold this belief. 1/6 said someone they knew had experienced a miracle. many believe in angels. and younger people are, if anything, more likely to hold these believes that older ones. looking at the subject through the lens of established faith, no longer affects what is going on, at least in britain and the u.s.. here in the u.s., websites such as the huffington post are reflected in the development. there's a blurring of the line between analysis and commentary. there are more personal and how-to columns. in the west, people are interested less in dogma handed down, and more an individual practice. click on one link on the power of intention or mindful living, and you find your inbox daily

used to with daily snippets of spiritual wisdom from online gurus. there is in the new media age, the perfect union of consumerism and spirituality. presiding over it all is the high priestess, someone i have great admiration for, oprah winfrey. for those who have not read it, i recommend, "oprah: the gospel of an icon." this is often criticized for coming out of a me, me, me culture. what other may be justification some areas, i think the criticism tends to come from those whose traditions are threatened by the new religious marketplace. they tend to overlook the fact that new communities are emerging.

it is often virtual communities, in for instance, opera's bookclub. atheism is getting a good airing. richard dawkins -- they're becoming leaders of the movement defining itself against dominant religious culture. the editor of bbc editor's sunday program for british audiences, which presents good coverage of global religion, suggests that atheism gets disproportionate coverage, the reflection, she wondered, of the secular newsroom. i suspect the leader of the alabama at atheists would strongly disagree with that. on my way to meet him, i drove the alabama where roadside sides urgently devote for jesus. and he told me of the classes that had been planted on his manicured lawn and the abuses children based at school because his dad was an atheist. i guess he is not alone.

and talk about the positive influence of the digital media, the democratization of the media, and that is a good thing. and the flip side, one i believe ran forces my argument that we need more him partial reporting on religion. former people are writing. everyone feels they can weigh in. it means more ill-informed opinions, especially in an age where there is disappearing religious literacy in the west, a byproduct of the move away from established religion. social media has been in embraced by islamic extremists. jihadists are tweeting their victory poses from the battlefields.

authority figures in islam and other mainstream religions have been less quick to realize the potential of the digital age, potentially seeing it as a threat. the vatican did catch up. the new pope has an active twitter account. he is the most talked about person on the internet and the world. just yesterday i got a tweet with a link to him pick up a hitchhiker in saint peter's square. it turned out to be a fellow argentinian priest he recognize in a crowd. it went around the world in an instant. this brings me to the story you thought i forgot about. the one where the roman hierarchy in its deep crisis pulled off the most inspired move. i speak not theologically, but as a journalist. the most inspired move ever by electing a man who got away last

time as the pope. they were written off as riddled by corruption and sexual abuse scandals, and cable of putting the own house together, managed to up in the narrative instantly with the election of pope francis. the choice of name, the gestures, the humble living and identification with the poor, d-mined the political battlefield. and then in his response about gay priest he said, who am i to judge? that won him many converts in unlikely places. and the feet of him washing feet, hugging a disfigured man,

giving up the roads of a priest, had made it something of a saint in a secular world, perhaps in search of one. "time magazine" embraced him. so did "the advocate." can the honeymoon last? traditionalists who have been quiet, are taking comfort in the fact the popes can change the doctrine here goes in the other side say the opposite. they pointed out that church doctrine has and does change on such as the church killed jesus. style is not just the cover of the book. it is the book itself.

i suggest that that view might sound sympathies among scholars of media religion and culture. a few predictions of the stores i think we might see more of. the arab spring remains huge. what happens in the middle east will have an enormous ripple effect be on the borders. pope mania will continue for a while. we will get a clearer indication of where the pope is taking his church, not least from the bishops in 2014, this year. and the interesting survey. he wants the views of catholics on marriage, divorce, and contraception. a hope seeking the views of his flock? much heated debate about that. the culture wars continue to evolve, as a once cohesive religious right has been replaced by alliances across

denominations, as believers fight for their right and space in the public sphere. we see battles against religious persecution and for religious freedom at one end of the spectrum. it on the other, we seek individual fights for the right to wear religious symbols. we see conscience pitted against the civil rights in society. this is partly about discrimination against gays, or employees who want contraception coverage. these arguments are being played out in the courts. the u.s. supreme court, the european court of human rights, and they will continue to do so, reflecting a broader dilemma. can a broadly secular society tolerate the existence of religious subculture, which

lives by self-imposed rules? much to reflect on. a greater need than ever, i believe, for the experts to play the role. as any religion reporter and keen reader of oscar wilde knows, the truth is really pure, and never simple. but it is worth giving and airing. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. that was very interesting, as we got it would be. we have time for questions and answers. with the recording, we would like to have microphones. perhaps we can have a volunteer to handle the other. the floor is open for questions.

>> hi. thank you for your fascinating lecture. how do you see the role of the media today when there is a gap that is really hard to bridge between religion in europe. you see it on one side, and you mentioned it at the end of the lecture, but i would like you to, if you can, elaborate about it. how do you see the role of the media? does it bridge the gap or make it worse between islam and europe? >> an interesting and tough question. lots to unpack in there. there is one story that leaps out at me, which includes a many angles to the battle between

freedom of expression, as some sought in a liberal democratic europe, of course the media itself are beneficiaries of a liberal western culture, which strongly supports and defends freedom of expression. versus freedom of religion and people defending their religious rights, their religious worldviews. the most striking example for me, and it is a few years ago was the mohammed cartoons in denmark. there were so many different angles to that. clearly, it infuriated and inflamed so much opinion in the islamic world. the modern media soon sent images around the world. we had danish imams traveled to the middle east to share that story of how these 12 cartoons

were blasphemous, offended islam and the prophet mohammed. the fact that you cannot even depict images of a prophet mohammed was bad enough, but images of the bomb was very inflammatory, basically. that started this huge firestorm around the world, as you recall. we had killings of people. it set off a tragic series of events. it also set off heated debates about the role of the media. about freedom of expression. about religious minorities in europe, about what accommodations can be made. it was interesting to see people in the western media who did not necessarily think it was a great idea to publish the cartoons come to the defense of the danish organization that published them because it was about freedom of expression.

it seemed to be a line being drawn in the sand about where the limits of tolerance work of the views of religious minorities. at the time, there were many muslims who said, hang on, there are some interesting contradictions here. in a europe talking about freedom of expression, it also has several countries which outlaw denial of the holocaust. there is a limit to free speech. there were all sorts of interesting debates going on and much bigger snapshots of what was going on with religious communities in europe, and how far europe was prepared to go to accommodate it. that was one example. in terms of what the media's role is, the media was clearly involved in that to some extent. if they were a proponent and defender of free speech. there were also pockets of the media where there were interesting discussions going on with dialogue and interfaith.

people were getting together trying to talk things down. that is not as broadly covered in a media that focuses on friction, differences of opinion, big news events, and it is hard to sell and interfaith conference to news editors in a newsroom, though i do think one should try. >> in the back. >> is this working? ok. just to stick to that point, you covered religion in the states and europe. there was a time when people were enthralled with the notion of american exceptionalism. but recently they been talking

about european exceptionalism, when it comes to religion. that is to say, you're busy only place where religion is bewildering. the rest of the world is like, yes, that is something people are into. europe is the only place where people are like, what is this? you are in a unique position to speak about that. could you speak about that and elaborate on the tension between how you treat religion in the public space and in the states, as opposed to europe? >> i think you are right. it is the odd continent out in many regards. i mention the secularization hypothesis. religion in europe was about to die out. it was postindustrial, and then, all of a sudden, religion turned around and caught europe off guard.

if you look at rates of religious attendance in churches, then your rates are very low. in the czech republic and prague, which is by some accounts, the most atheistic countries in the world, only two percent of people profess a religious belief. it is the odd man out. it is fascinating to me. on the flipside, we are getting data that suggest that religious affiliation, churchgoing is going down quite a lot in america. we are now getting figures of atheists in the teens or 12%. that is quite a large category. when you start looking at data it is quite difficult. some of the surveys pose questions such as, do you regard yourself as atheist, agnostic, or something else, nonreligious.

it is in the nonreligious area that i find that there is a lot of interesting things to be done because a lot of people would say that that is spiritual but not religious. a lot of people are interested in the wisdom 2.0 conference. they are advertising online and talking about the intersection of wisdom in the digital age. they are talking about wisdom leaders that you can go see. you can go to yoga rooms, meditation, go to inspiration village. eckhart tolle is there. they are being touted as wisdom leaders. people are in search of an immediate lift experience.

"join us to understand how to live with more presence in the digital age." some interesting things are happening. europe is very much the odd continent out, in some ways. >> because of your professional background, you concentrated on the news. can you talk about entertainment? will we be watching in the future? do you think there is an entertainment part of it? >> i was invited to high-level gathering at the bbc. it was all departments, news, entertainment, everyone was invited to think about religion in a different way, and

reflecting the audience is more. their dissents that religion had come back. he came back on the scene explosively, especially with 9/11 and all the fallout from that. the news editors and editors of all the departments, arts, entertainment, science, drama, got together and try to discuss how to better reflect the views of the audiences to try to give a fuller picture of what was going on, and come it religion from different angles. it was a top-down approach. i think it had mixed success. for well, you started to see dramas and soap operas like "east enders" start to tackle some of these. there might be a muslim

character. there were various ethical issues worked out. they did try. i am not sure i agree with a top-down approach. interest waned. it moved on. i was a fan of farmer ted, the satirical comedy. that was great. >> i will take the privilege of the chair and try question of my own. i've always been interested in the discourse within religion journalism, and the problem of evaluating journalism. one of the reasons why journalists are reluctant to cover religion, is because "there are so many of them." and you have to choose between them.

do you think that situation will change in the new era you're talking about, where more and more religious expression can well up through the digital media, and whether because it is no longer framed authoritatively by media voices, or editorial decision-making, whether there will be more discourse comparing them? >> interesting. i think, yes. yes. in this new digital age we will see more of that, more the religion outside the box. i think traditional media continues to struggle, certainly, in terms of, the news culture that i have come out of. when you have a story that breaks, a it evaluated for the value as a news event, there is a reflexive approach that looks for the leaders to speak to, the authority figures. well, that is breaking down in

these wisdom conferences, and elsewhere in the more democratized space. the digital media is more receptive to other voices whoart the imams, are not the rabbis. i have faith that, if i am covering a hard news story, when i was a religion or, there would be receptive it he to me covering the suicide bombings. i would be asked again, to the point got sick of it, having to explain that the elegy of suicide bombing, and go to the people who could speak authoritatively about how it doesn't fit with mainstream islam. there was less receptivity to the touchy-feely stuff. and the spirituality. audience interest was huge.

we did not have those ways of gauging it. but there was a great deal of audience interest in a series that dealt with demographics and the way that religion had evolved. there was a lot of interest in that sort of thing. i think there is still, in a very structured media environment, and traditional media, there is this natural urge to go and seek out the authority structure, when the authority, the leaders, when they are not there, they butting heads a little bit. this is an ingrained bias against -- the feeling that oprah winfrey and everything going on in the internet, and the new spirituality out there, that it is in sight intellectual. and that it doesn't justify much news coverage, there is a bit of

that going on. i would be trusted to be a regular journalist if i was interviewing the archbishop. i would be expecting to pull forth the tough questions and would be trusted to do so. but if it was somebody else there who was more airy fairy, want to talk about spirituality, i was told to go really hard on them because of this sort of suspicion and the fact that it was not really that justified as a religion, if you like. >> you started to answer some of my question there. you are talking earlier about defending the religious beat with the bbc. i was wondering how journalists were defending their coverage of rising religion practices. use the term "out of the box

religion." and i was wondering how they are purging us with authenticity with new religious experiences. what are your thoughts on that? >> it is quite hard for religion journalists to go into these areas. for instance, when i was a religion correspondent, i was unraveling whether a war was sectarian or religiously rooted. we all know that it bleeds together. sectarian identity issues, it is hard to unpick them. it had to justify why the religion correspondent was talking about it. sometimes it was really more about economics or ethnicity. it could just inflame issues if you talked about religion. religion is what is being poured on the fire, but it did not start the fire. i spent a lot of my beat trying

to find in my own head what was a religion story and what was not. and i was looking to find my way out of the box and talk about interesting developments that you are referring to. it is a difficult one to navigate. i think it is happening. but one of the problems with the shrinking of the religion beat and the experts watching what is going on in our world is that there is nobody spotting the trends if you don't have religious correspondent there, reading and writing about them.

if you do not have experts out there reading, talking to experts, in my world, i would love to see more bridges built between reporters and the academy, and policy experts. get everyone talking together. and then reporters naturally reflect more of what is going on in the world. ed is why you need specialists. i am not saying they are the only voices. i am not suggesting you need an authority figure or the archbishop. i think it is great that there are more and more voices out there. but i think you do need some sort of ability to contextualize, give nuance to the story, and that it is one of those areas which is quite hard to accumulate. not that it is harder to be a religion correspondent than a political correspondent. it is a different job. you're less reacting and more crafting features and thinking about ways in which religion and spirituality is changing.

>> thank you for a wonderful, wonderful presentation. there are so much concern about the business model of journalism. you talked about the podcast funded in a nontraditional way. i'm wondering if there is a future for that, for religious journalism moving forward. is there enough interest and nontraditional funding that would go into reporting? >> i am invested in it because it is reduced by friends who are

coming out with great stories that i have long wanted to report on, and they're giving me work. i should mention that. in fact, i go to arizona next to talk about spirituality and health issues that i am interested in. i'm interviewing dr. andrew about mind, body, spirit medicine, and a cherokee medicine man who became a friend of mine, who is a fascinating man and widely read across different religious and spiritual traditions. we are going to talk about native american spirituality, in particular cherokee. there is a forum being provided that was not provided in the old traditional newsroom setting. that is great for people interested in it. i think it should be funded, and it is being funded. it is fabulous that it is being funded. but it is difficult to raise money in this harsh environment. it is wonderful that there are inbound minutes.

there is the ford foundation. they're all these organizations out there becoming absolutely vital, if we want this kind of coverage to continue. there are smaller funders in britain doing the same thing. many podcasts are done on a shoestring and are not making you rich, but it is rewarding and enriching in other ways. >> i will do one more. you don't have to answer this. i am wondering if you thought about the question of whether some religions get more better coverage than others. are there some do get more and better, and why? >> i am talking from a western perspective and my experience in the media here. the coverage has changed.

it has traditionally been quite reverential toward christianity. in the bbc that i joined, and the religious department there were a lot of christian devotional programs put out. and even the news, it was, and still to a certain extent is largely about christianity. that reflects the audience in the domestic sphere, and it is quite a churched audience that listens to the program. i would be constantly pushing the boundaries will but, very interested in covering different religions. islam has got a real beating in the press for a long time. i think and hope that has changed quite a bit, especially in the bbc, and the npr. islam remains a big challenge for us because it remains, to a certain extent, in much of the media foreign. people do try to fit it into categories, discourse that does

not fit it. it was interesting after 9/11 to see western governments, such as the british government go out looking for the moderate voices of islam. they try to co-opt certain groups. that did not go down very well in many muslim communities. and they looked at sufis. they said they are great. and then they thought, they actually have a very traditional view of the koran and women's rights. i would like to see fuller coverage that gives all angles of the story. certainly, islam became the news because of negative news events. it is much harder to get into initiatives happening within islam and between religions that are positive developments.

islam became the news because of negative news events and it is much harder to get into initiatives that are happening within islam and between religions that are positive developments, such as the common word initiative that is happening. another is another foundation encouraging engagement as well is to look at the role of religion in foreign policy. when people look at ideologies and different economic circumstances are not looking at religious causes. an outshoot of the tony blair initiative. that was an initiative to bring young people together to talk religion. that is interesting but hard to sell as a new story. >> 9/11 was the thing which has really given a boost to islam, but the truth of the matter is that in a book, which is a bbc

domestic religion covers shows in the early 1990's which question different groups among christians, including islamic listeners and viewers, ask questions like, if you want more, what happens when it turns over? it was oh it's islam. it was always, we want more. >> there were some of those reporting on islam before 9/11. i mentioned the resolution and reform series on islam that i was doing. it was like it suddenly, the news editors at the top unawares. they were playing catch-up and unfortunately happens quite a lot, a reactive environment.

i think that is white is good to have specialists. they're less reactive and more proactive. >> we have time for three more. we will start over here to my left. >> i did research in the context of korea. i found that most of the time, sometimes they do cover religion in a positive manner. i found that they have kind of expectations of religion, what religion can do for society. can you tell me one or more experiences when you cover religion and a policy matter and why did you decide to do that?

>> i didn't set out with an agenda, but there have been tragic stories out of which some very positive messages have come from communities. christian communities. in a couple of instances i can think of, we had the july 7 bombings in london. tragic events. a young man was killed in the london bus bombing. i approached his mother and as a human being, i felt a little bit reluctant. here is a woman in full grief for her only son. i heard that she had a deep christian faith. the catholic cathedral that she attended gave me her number. i asked permission from her to get the number. she gave me the most moving interview that i have ever done

in my life. this was in 24 hours with him losing her son. the interview went out on the morning news program on bbc radio called "today." it is usually a very gladiatorial, presenter versus politician, three minutes apart fighting over political issues of the day. this one was about eight minutes and really stunned mainstream audience and a lot of editors as she talked in great depth and huge heart about her son and about the impact of the bombings on her family but about her deep christian faith, how she for gave the bombers, and this was 24 hours later. how she prayed for the bombers' families and it was a really, really moving event that came out of something that was a real tragic case. you could have focused on here

we go again and looking at the negative of religion. this is something that was very positive and very moving came out of it. there was another one, the tragic shooting in amish country in pennsylvania in lancaster county. that was a fascinating example of the media rushing their, all of the hosts of the evening news channels were there, all the satellite trucks, cars it was two worlds colliding. you had all of the satellite trucks and journalists standing there reporting as a horse-drawn cart went past. as a physical illustration of the two worlds colliding. we knew interviewed some of these families who had lost

their children in a tragic shooting and they talked about forgiveness and the bible told them to believe in a certain approach that was forgiving. they gave the families that forgave the families. it was very moving. things stood still for the secular media and this is religion in a different light. i didn't set out to do a positive religion story, but some events allowed those moments to unfold. they were very moving, i think. >> i would like to give you an opportunity to return to the question about whether some religions are treated fairly in the media or more difficult to cover. that may explain -- i teach in the anthropology department here and i do research in sri lanka. i have been aware that from a media point of view, it is often very ironic and difficult for reporters to report from a place like sri lanka which has

produced violence that has religious overtones to it that does not let it conform to our stereotypes of the religions that we have ahead of time. two examples and i would like to offer some comments if you can think of any buried up the reasons we concluded the civil war entry locker, which concluded in 2009, it was conducted by a rebel group and it was very often the case in the press that it was assumed that they were a religious group. that there cause was some kind of religious protest. it was assumed because they speak the language, they must all be induced. some of the most powerful members of the groups and suicide bombers were christian. more recently, and since we are in boulder i think we have to bring this up, i think that buddhism always gets a favorable

treatment in the press and it is the favor religion here in boulder, for sure. [laughter] recently there has been a very militant religious conflict in places like burma directed, ironically, against the muslims. these are counted intuitive stories and i think they are a challenge to journalism. >> they are. >> you have any suggestions of how they could be covered better? >> when you mention sri lanka, i then thought of myanmar, burma, and the way that buddhist monks have been inciting violence against the muslim minority. that has shocked a lot of people around the world who understood what is him to be a vegetarian, peace-loving, very gentle, meditative religion focused on

raising one's consciousness. the truth on the ground is often quite different. like everybody, new journalists have to catch up on that sometimes. that has certainly been the case in myanmar, burma. it is a challenge and you're right. quite often, buddhism and hinduism are given gentle treatment. i remember reporting a lot on hinduism that gives a different face to it than the one we often see in america, in boulder. it is an ongoing challenge and i think it is right that some religions are possibly treated more gently than others.

of course, it also depends on where you're coming from and which media you're talking about. it isn't purely religion, but in america it seems that israel is given more positive treatment in the press and it is quite the opposite in europe. that is an ongoing issue about that and the bbc often has to find itself answering to arguments and reports on whether it is reporting on conflict in the middle east and the sick terry and religious overtones are fair and balanced and that is an ongoing issue. >> do you have the last question? >> thank you for a lovely presentation. i just want to ask you from a practitioner's perspective because i work as an assistant producer. i find it a bit hard to balance between the moderate views and

the extremist because i have been asked to do some filtering, when inviting people on show, so what is your experience and suggestions or any comments about that balancing act? >> is a very difficult one. it is one faced by programs every day, but especially when something happens. in islam, some extremists or something, something happens, and then there is a lot of internal navelgazing among editorial staff as to whether it is justified to call him an extremist who has three followers to talk about a story. there is no clear line as to when you do that but i think sometimes it is justified to call in the chaudhry's of this

world. if something happened in that spirit that he can talk about, as long as you contextualize and say this is not a guy with half a million followers. he has five followers and a park. context is all, i think. as we discussed, it is kind of apply to conservative or orthodox. there is always a real effort to try and balance and be as impartial as possible, at while at the same time recognizing that we all come with their own frame of reference and that it is an ongoing challenge to try and do that. >> on behalf of the attendees of the conference and the center for media, religion, and culture, and the university of colorado, i want to thank you, jane.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, readings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of the private industry. created by the tv -- cable industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hb, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> in his weekly radio address, president obama urged congress to raise the minimum wage. congressman tom cotton gives the republican address. he called for changes to the health care law. >> hi everybody. restoring the idea of opportunity for all requires

action from all of us. wherever i can act on my own, i will. when i can ask americans for help, i will do that. in my state of the union address, i asked business leaders to take action to raise their employees wages. even though our economy is growing and our businesses have created 3.5 million jobs over the past four years, average wages have barely budged. so it is good news that earlier this week one of america's largest retailers the gap, , decided to raise wages for employees beginning this year. this decision will benefit 65,000 workers. that means more families will be ,ble to raise their kids finnish studies, and keep up on bills with less financial stress. ceo said it is right for our brand, good for our people, and beneficial to our customers. he is right.

raising american wages is not just a good deed, it is good business and good for our economy. it helps reduce turnover. it boosts productivity. and gives folks more money to spend at local businesses. as a chief executive myself, i took action last week to lift more wages by requiring federal contractors to pay their employees a fair wage of $10.10 per hour. since i first asked congress to raise the minimum wage, the -- six states have passed laws to raise their minimum wage. more states are working on it as we speak. only congress can finish the job and left american wages across the country. right now there is a bill before congress that would boost america's minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. that bill would lift wages for more than 16 million americans without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending. even though a majority of

republicans and democrats support it republicans in , congress do not want to give it a vote. hard-working americans deserve better. let's tell congress to say yes. past that bill. give america a raise. here in america, no one who works hard should have to live in poverty. everyone who works hard should have a chance to get ahead. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> i am tom cotton. i'm proud to represent the people of arkansas in congress. i am a fixed generation arkansan myself. from yell county. arkansans are hard-working people. and they are tough. around my parts people sometimes they that we have true grit. arkansans, like most americans, have had their grit test it. through a financial collapse, recession, and a stagnant recovery. barack obama's policies are not

causing the problems. they are causing the problem. they are irresponsibly adding trillions of dollars to our national debt. it slows economic great -- growth today and places an immoral burden on our kids and grandkids. the president's policies concentrate too much power in washington, giving more control to washington bureaucrats who want to run your lives while handing out special favors and privileges to be elite. there is no better example of these policies and president obama's namesake legislation. obamacare. this law promised to make things better, lower costs for consumers and improve the quality of care while cutting health care spending and saving the federal government money. we now know the sad reality of obamacare. lose your insurance, lose your doctor, lose your job. president obama promised you keep your plan if you like it. that is not true. 5 million americans faced cancellations. the president predicts that tens of millions more will lose their plans.

many are losing access to their family doctors and specialists. the nonpartisan congressional budget office predicts that obamacare could cost the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs. what do we get for all this? obamacare will add trillions in new spending at a time of record debt. it will mean less money for workers. less capital for businesses to expand and grow. less growth means less opportunity and more stress for families. the congressional budget office says that we still have 31 million uninsured in 10 years. the same number president obama used to sell the law in the first place. the impact of these policies are real. i have met people across the state with stories that show how misguided obamacare is. elizabeth from arkansas knows this well. she gets insurance through your -- her employer. but her monthly premiums have risen 85% because of obamacare's new coverage mandate.

she is forced to pay for think -- things she does not want and can't afford, simply because washington politicians and bureaucrats think they know what is best for her and her family. what is worse, they're not just raising her premium cost. she now takes some less total pay than in 2011, and after two raises and a promotion. she stopped shopping at locally-owned businesses because she can't afford their prices. obamacare is hurting her local community as well. for countless other people just like her, obamacare is not an amazing success or he. -- success story. law isry shows this fundamentally wrong. wrong for arkansas, and wrong for america. as a result, too many people across the country are out of work five years into the economic recovery. republicans in congress are committed to stopping the harms

caused by the president's policy and getting america working again. we are advocating reforms that trust patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, and are working to get spending under control. because we trust you to make the right decisions for you and your family. thank you for listening and have a great weekend. >> on the next "washington journal," terry branstad, governor of iowa, talks about priorities in 2014. then the president of the service employees international union discusses issues currently facing labor unions. and a look at the recent u.n. report on north korea, which accuses the country's leader of committing crimes against humanity. john park with the u.n. institute of peace joins us. we will also take your comments by phone, twitter, e-mail, and facebook. starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

on this weekend's "newsmakers," lorraine miller is our guest. she is the interim president of the naacp. she talks about minimum wage and health care, which were topics of a discussion with president obama and civil rights leaders at the white house. here is a preview of our interview. >> it has not been what anybody hope for. thatthat comes the persona maybe this is not something i really want to participate in. unless you peel that back and show people the advantages of health care and why that is much better than using the emergency room's of our hospitals as primary care for a lot of people , i think people understand that. it helps them plan their health

care. it works. it takes a lot of education. "newsmakers" in its entirety tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and :00 p.m. east are in on c-span -- 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, american newory dbu -- tv debuts its serious, featuring films produced by the u.s. government that take you into a vivid journey on america's pass. this week, washington, dc during world war ii and women workers during the american military buildup of the 1940's. >> industry rolled out the materials of war. of all the clamor of heavy docks whereg the idle ships awaited cargo held up by labor shortage.

the call persisted. stillll for help that was echoing in the detroit area when women began to respond. convinced they could do factory work, or anything that man could do frontal sam. listen -- the wings overhead. your sisters are singing. the song of women, american women on the warpath. " starting thisa, sunday at four clock p.m. eastern on c-span 3's american history tv. >> the all-new c-span.org website is now mobile-friendly. you can access our conference of coverage of politics, nonfiction books, and american history where you want, when you want it, and how you want. the responsive design scales to fit any of your screens, from

the monitor of your desktop computer, your laptop, tablet, or smartphone. whether you are at home, at the office, or on the go, you can watch c-span's live coverage of washington, check program schedules, and search our extensive video library wherever and whenever you want. the new c-span.org makes it easy for you to keep an eye on what is happening in washington. >> earlier this month, the creation museum in petersburg, kentucky hosted a debate on evolution versus creation. ken ham,m founder, debated bill nye the science guy. this debate is two and a half hours. >> i am pleased to welcome you to legacy hall in each region museum in northern kentucky in the metropolitan area of cincinnati. i am tom foreman from cnn, and i'm pleased to be the moderator

for this evolution versus creation debate. a very old question, where did we come from? my answer is from washington this morning by airplane. [laughter] but there is a much more profound, longer answer that people have sought after for a long time. tonight's question is the following -- is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? are welcome to hundreds of thousands watching on the internet at debatelive.org. the auditorium here, all the folks as well. media joined by 70 representatives from many of the world's great news organizations. we are glad to have them here. and now our debaters, mr. bill nye and mr. ken ham. [applause]

we had a coin toss earlier to determine who would go first. the only thing missing was joe namath in a fur coat. [laughter] but it went very well. mr. ham won the coin toss and opted to speak first. but first let me tell you about both of these gentlemen. himnye's website describes as scientist, engineer, comedian, author, and website. he produced a number of tv shows,ing including "bill knight -- nye guy."incence

the show won 18 emmys in five years. he wrote textbooks, including "bill nye's great big book of tiny germs." he is host of "100 greatest discoveries" on science channel, "the eye of nye," and he frequently appears on programs to discuss science topics. he serves as executive directory of the planetary science and -- society. he is a graduate of cornell, bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering. ken ham is president and cofounder of answers in genesis, a organization that upholds the authority of scripture is from the first verse. he is the man behind the popular high-tech creation museum where we hold this debate. the museum has attracted much of the world's media. the answers in genesis website

is well trafficked with 2 million visitors alone last month. mr. ham also a best selling speaker,uch in demand and host of a daily radio feature on 700 stations. this is his second public debate on evolution and creation. the first was at harvard in the 1990's. mr. ham is a native of australia , with a degree from the queensland institute of technology and a diploma of education from the university of queensland in brisbane, australia. now mr. ham, you opted to go first, so you will be first with your five-minute openings a man. -- opening statement. >> good evening. i know that not everyone watching this debate necessarily agrees with what i have to say. i'm an aussie and they tell me i have an accent. so it doesn't matter what i say. some people tell me, we like to hear you saying it. i hope you enjoy me saying it

anyway. the main topic is this, is creation a modern of origin. -- model of origin in today's society? when this was first announced on the internet, there were statements like this 1 -- scientists should not debate creationists period. this one from the one discovery.com website, should scientists debate creationists. there is a gross mr. presentation in our culture. we think people are being indoctrinated to believe that creationists can't be scientists. i want you to meet a modern day scientist who is a biblical creationist. >> my name is jim burgess, a professor of engineering design in the u.k. i have published over 100 scientific papers on design and engineering and biological

systems. in my research work i have found scientific evidence that fully supports creationism as the best explanation of the origin. i have designed major parts of spacecraft used by nasa. >> here is a biblical creationist who is also a scientist and inventor. i want young people to understand that. the problem is this -- we need to define terms correctly. we need to define creation and evolution in regards to origin. we need to define science. in the opening statement i want , to concentrate on dealing with the word science. i believe the word science has been hijacked by secularists. science -- it comes from classical latin, meaning "to know." it means a state of knowing, knowledge. but there are different types of knowledge. this is where the confusion lies. there is experimental, observational science using the scientific method. that is what produces our

technology. computers, spacecraft, jet planes, smoke detectors, dna, antibodies, medicine and vaccines. creationists or evolutionists, have the same observational and experiment with science. here is an atheist who is a great scientist. one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome. or dr. raymond, a man who invented the mri scanner and revolutionized medicine and is a biblical creationist. do withn has nothing to developing technology. when we're talking about origin, we are talking about the past, our origins. manher it is molecules to or a creation account. talking about the past, we like to call that origins or historical science, knowledge concerning the past. here at the creationist museum, we make no apology about the

are basedour origins upon the biblical account of origins. now, when you research science textbooks used in public schools we found this. by and large the origins of historical science is based upon man's idea about the past. for instance, the ideas of darwin. our research found public school textbooks use the word science for observational science and historical science. they arbitrarily defined science as naturalism. they present molecules to man theution as fact, imposing theory of naturalism or atheism on generations of students. i assert that the word science has been hijacked by secularists , teaching evolution to force the naturalism on generations of kids. teaching that all life develops from natural processes from promoting a forms, which has great bearing on how we deal with life and death.

>> it is hard for many to accept that when we die it is over. >> the bible gives a totally different account of origins. the meaning of life, our future. god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. creation aion -- is viable model of origins in today's modern era? debate is two different accounts of origins of believe, and creation is the science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era >> that is time. i have the unenviable job of being the timekeeper. like the referee in football you don't like. if one of our debaters runs over, i will stop him in the name of keeping it there. mr. ham thank you for your comments. now it's mr. nye here.

>> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i appreciate you including me in your facility here. looking around the room, i see just one bow tie. is that right? just one? there's two, that's great. i started wearing bow ties when i was young in high school. my father, 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 and even in those days at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos. the tuxedo came with an untied bowtie. he didn't know how to tie it. he took a chance, he went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door, excuse me, can you hell me tie my tie.

the guy said sure, lie down on the bed. so, my grandfather wanted to have the tie on. wasn't sure what he was getting into. he said to him laying on the bed, the guy tied a perfect bowtie knot. quite reasonably, my grandfather said thank you. why did i have to lie down on the bed? undertakers, i am an . that's 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. but it gives you to -- something to think about and remember. here tonight, we are going to have two stories. we can compare mr. ham's story story from what i will call the outside, from mainstream science. the question tonight, does ken ham's creation model hold 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 c.s.i.

c.s.i. petersburg. i think it's coming. on c.s.i., 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 apply in the past apply now. that's why they are natural law. that is why we embrace them. that's how we nail these discoveries that enable all of this remarkable technology. c.s.i. is a fictional show and it is based absolutely on real people doing real work. when you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past. you trust those clues and embrace them and move forward to convict somebody. mr. ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a flood that somehow influenced everything we observe in nature, a 500 foot wooden

boat, ages you keepers for 14,000 individuals and also. -- individual animals. in the worldant underwater for a full year. i ask, is that reasonable? you'll hear a lot about the grand canyon which is a remarkable place. 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 crossover into the fossils of another. in other words, when there was a big slot on the earth you would expect drowning animals to swing up -- swim up to a higher level. not any one of them did. not a single one. if you can find evidence of that, you can 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 almond who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion.

they worship together. they eat together. they live in their communities and enjoy each other's company. but these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view 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 choose eschew thecience, process and try to divide science into into an observational science, historic science, we are not going to move forward. we will not brace natural law, we will not make discoveries and we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead. if you ask me if ken ham's creation model is viable, i would say no. it is absolutely not viable. 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. now each one will offer 30 minute illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider. mr. ham, you're up. >> the debate topic was, is creation a viable model of origin in today's scientific era? i made a statement, creation is the only viable model confirmed by observational science in today's modern era. i say what we need to be doing is defining our terms. particularly three terms -- science, creation, and evolution. i discussed the meaning of the word science. meant by experimental,

observational science, briefly. that both creationists and evolutionists can be scientists. i mentioned an atheist who is a great scientist, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome. also dr. raymond damadian, who invented the mri scanner. i want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and inventor of i am raymond damadian, a young earth creation scientist who believes god created the world in 624-hour days, just as recorded in the book of genesis. by god's grace and devoted prayers of my godly mother-in-law, i invented the mri scanner in 1969. the idea that scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old can do real science is simply wrong. >> he's most adamant about that. he revolutionized medicine, he's a biblical creationist. i encourage people like that.

let me introduce you to another biblical creation scientists. >> my name is danny faulkner. i received my phd in astronomy from indiana university. for 26 years i was president -- university at the university of south carolina lancaster, where i held the rank of professor emeritus. upon my retirement in january 2013, i joined the research staff at answers in genesis. i'm a stellar astronomer. that means by primary i'm interested in stars. i am interested in the study of eclipsing binary stars, and i published many materials in the literature, including the astronomical journal and the observatory. there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. >> i mentioned dr. steward in -- dr. stuart burgess, professor of engineering design in england. designed a double-action gear

set of the robotic arm on a very expensive satellite. if that had not worked, the whole satellite would have been useless. yet dr. burgess is a biblical creationist who believes, as i believe. think about this for a moment. a scientist like dr. burgess who believes in creation as i do is a small minority in the scientific world. let's see what he has to say. >> many of my colleagues are not sympathetic to the treasonous creationist viewpoint. they are afraid to speak out because of criticisms they would get from the media and the atheist lobby. >> that's a real problem today. we need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics. i just want to say that non-christians scientists are really borrowing from the christian worldview anyway to carry out their experimental

observational scientist -- science. when they're doing observational science they have to assume the laws of logic, they have to assume the laws of nature. they have to assume the uniformity of nature. if the universe came about by natural processes, where did the rules of logic come from? did they just pop into existence? i have a question for bill nye . lawso you account for the of logic and nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of god? in my opening statement i discussed a different type of science or knowledge, origin or historical science. there is a confusion here, a misunderstanding here. people by and large have not been taught to look at what you believe about the past as different from what you observe in the present. you don't observe the past directly. when you think about the creation account, we can't observe god creating. we can't observe the creation of

adam and eve. we are willing to admit believes about the past. what you see in the present is very different. even some public school textbooks sort of technology difference between historical and observational science. here is an earth science textbook used in public schools. we read this -- the aim of " historical geology is to understand earth's long history." we are talking about historical science trying to establish a timeline about a number of physical changes that occurred in the past. we studied physical geology before historical geology because we first must understand how earth works. in other words we observe things , in the present and then we're assuming that's always happened in the past. we will try to figure out how this happened. there is a difference between what you observe and what happened in the past. let me illustrate it this way. if bill nye and went to the a

grand canyon, we can agree there is the sandstone and the shale and the boundary. we can agree on that. you know what we will disagree on, we can analyze the minerals, we would disagree on how long it took to get there. shalef the sandstone or -- there is a supposed 10-million gap there. but i don't see a gap. that might be different to what bill nye would say. there's a difference between what you actually observe directly and your interpretation. when i was at the goddard space center a number of years ago, i met creationists and evolutionists both working on the hubble telescope. they agreed on how to build the telescope. they disagreed on how to interpret the data the telescope obtained in regard to the age of the universe. we could talk about lots of other things. for instance, i have heard bill nye talk about how a smoke

detector works using the radioactive element americium. we agree how radioactivity in naples that to work. if they will use radioactive elements and talk about the age of the earth, you have a problem because you were not there. we have to understand -- we could agree whether you're creationist or evolutionist on, we will disagree on how to interpret the origin of mars. there are some people that believe there was a global site on mars and no liquid water on mars. we will disagree on the interpretation of origins. not from an observational standpoint, we only have the present. creationists and evolutionists both work on medicines and vaccines. it doesn't matter -- all scientists have the same experimental or 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 molecules to man evolution? evolutionistsnd all have the same evidence. bill nye and i have the same grand canyon. we don't disagree on that. we would have the same fish fossil and the same dinosaur and same animals, same humans and same dna and radio active decay. we have the same universe. actually, we all have the same evidences. it's not the evidences that are different. it is a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past. you know why that is? it is a battle of world views and starting points, a battle over philosophical worldviews and starting points of the same evidence. i admit my starting point is god is ultimate authority. if someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. that's really the difference. i have been emphasizing the difference between historical

origins science about the past when you weren't there. we need to understand, we weren't there. or experimental or observational science using five senses in the present, the scientific method, what you can directly observe, test and repeat. , there's a difference between the two. that's not what's being taught. that's why kids aren't being taught to the think critically and correctly about the origin issue. it's also important to understand when talking about creation and evolution, both involve historical science and observational science. the role of observational science can be used to confirm or otherwise one's historical science based on one's starting point. when you think about the debate topic and what i affirmed concerning creation, if our origins are historical science based on the bible account of origins is true, then they should be predictions from this that we can test using observational science. there are. for instance, based on the bible, we'd expect to find

evidence concerning an intelligence confirming and intelligence-produce life. the bible said god made animals after their kind and find each -- implying each kind produces its own, not that one kind produces another. onewould expect to confirm race of humans, because we all go back to adam and need, biologically that would mean one race. evidence confirming the tower of babel. evidence confirming a young universe. i can go through all of those, but a couple we will look at briefly. in the creation museum, we have a display featuring replica is of darwin's finches. darwin collected finches in the galapagos and took them back to england, and we see the different species, the beak sizes. from the specimens darwin obtained in the galapagos, he

actually pondered these things, how do you explain this. in his notes, he came up with this diagram here, 83. -- heually said, i think was talking about different species and may be the species came from common ancestors. when it comes to finches we would agree that different species came from a common ancestor, but a finch is what it would have to come from. see, darwin wasn't just think -- pinging about species. darwin had a much bigger picture in mind. when you look the origin of species and read that book, you'll find he made this statement. from such low and immediate form, both animals and plants might have been developed, we must admit all organic beings which have ever lived may be descended from someone primordial form. he had in mind what we today know as an evolution tree of life. that all life has risen from

some form. now when you consider the classification system, we would say as creationist, we have many creationist scientists research this, to say, the kind genesis one is the family of classification. for instance one dog kind, one cat kind. andhave different genera different species, but you did not need anywhere near the number of animals on the ark you would need. you didn't need all the species of dog, just two. based on the biblical account there in genesis one, they are -- they have drawn up what they call a creation orchard. saying there is great variation in the genetics of dogs and finches. over time, particularly after noah's flood, if they were two dogs you could end up with different species of dogs, and incredible amount of variability in the genes of any creature.

you expect the different species appear. but there are limits. dogs will always be dogs. finches will always be finches. as a creationist i've maintained observational scientists -- science confirms this model based on the bible. for instance, take dogs in dated januaryaper 2014, scientists working at the university of california stated this. " we provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs and disfavoring alternative models which dogs arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations." that diagram is very similar to creationists that oppose based upon the creation account in genesis. you have a common dog that gives rise to the different species of dogs. that's exactly what we're saying here. in the creation museum, we're

showing the finches here. with the different beaks beside dog skulls, different species of dogs. there's more variation in the dog here than there are in these finches. yet, the dogs that's never used as example of evolution but the finches are. particularly in the public school textbooks, children are taught, see the changes occurring here. here's another problem. not only has the word "science" id hijacked by secularists, believe 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 it's used for observable changes that we would agree with and use for unobservable changes such as molecules to man. let me explain to you what's going on. i was a science teacher in the public schools. and i know what the children were taught. i checked the textbooks.

students are taught today, there are all these different animals, plants, but they are all part of this great big tree of life that goes back to some primordial form. we see changes in finches, changes in dogs and so on. we don't deny the changes. you see different species of finches and dogs. but they put it all together in that evolution tree. that's what you don't observe. you don't observe that. that's belief there. that's historical science. i will say it's wrong. what you do observe, you do observe different species of dogs, different species of finches, but then there are limits. you don't see one kind changing into another. actually, we're told that if you teach creation in the public schools -- i'm going to say wait a minute, actually, the creation model here based upon the bible observational science confirms this. this is what you observe. you don't observe this tree. actually it's a public school textbook that are teaching i

-- they believed and imposing it on students. they need to be teaching them observational science to understand the reality was happening -- of what is happening. they accept the evolutionary tree but reject the creation orchard. but observational science --firms a creation of creation orchard. they are imposing a naturalistic religion on students. the word evolution has been hijacked using a bait and switch to indoctrinate students. let me introduce you to another scientist richard lenski. university. state a great scientist known for culturing e. coli in the lab. he found there were some e. coli that he seems -- seems to develop the ability to grow on substrates. richard lenski, as he mentioned in this book, it's called

"evolution in the lab." the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution. those say, this is against the creationists. jerry coin from university of chicago says, lenski's experiment is another poke in anti-evolutionists. you can get these traits by combining a combination of unlikely events. is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionist? is it really seeing complex traits involving? 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. >> i got my phd from university of oklahoma in microbiology and teach at liberty university and do research on e. coli. i have published in secular journals, the american society for microbiology, infection and

immunity, environmental microbiology, and several others. my work has been cited in the journal's "nature," "public library of science genetics," cited regularly in those journals. bute i was taught nothing evolution, i don't accept that position and do my research from a creation perspective. when i look at the evidence, e. coli supposedly evolving over 30 years in the lab. 30,000 generations. people say it is now able to grow in citrate. i don't deny it grows on citrate , but that is not any new information. the information is already there, and it is just a switch that gets turned on and off. that's what they reported in there. there's nothing new. >> students need to be told what's really going on here. certainly there's change but it's not changing necessarily for molecule to man. we can look at other predictions. what about everyday confirming

one race. let me look at the human population. based upon darwin's idea on human evolution, darwin did teach, there are lower races and higher races. would you believe that in the 1900s one of the most popular biology textbooks used in the public schools in america t this? -- taugh there exist five races on earth, and the highest type of all our the caucasians. can you imagine if that was in the public schools today? yet that's what it was taught. but it was based on darwin's ideas that are wrong. you have a wrong foundation. you're going to have a wrong world view. had they started from the bible and from the creation account in the bible, what does it teach? we are all descendents of adam and he. -- eve. different people groups form with distinct characteristics,

but there is biologically only one race of humans. amentioned dr. venter, researcher with the human genome project. in the year 2000 it was headline news -- they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome and declared unanimously that there was only one race, the human race. who would have guessed? you see, there we have observational science confirming the creation account, not confirming at all darwin's ideas. now, there's much more that can be said on each of these topics. obviously you can't do that in a short time like this. you can do a lot more research. i suggest you visit our website for a lot more information. the debate topic is creation a bible model of origins in today's scientific era. i said we need to define the terms. particularly the term science and the term evolution. i believe we need to understand how they're being used to impose anti-god religion on generation

s of unsuspecting students. i keep emphasizing, we do need to understand the difference between experimental and observational science and historical science. the secularists don't like me doing this, they don't want to admit there is a belief aspect what they are saying. let me illustrate. this is a statement from bill nye. >> you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old. >> i agree. you can show the earth is not flat. the galileo spacecraft is showing the earth, you speeded up, it is spinning and you see it is a sphere. you can observe that. you can't observe the age of the earth. you don't observe that. there's a big difference between historical science, talk the past and observational science talking about the present. i believe what's happening is this, students are being indoctrinated by the confusion of terms. the hijacking of the word science and evolution in a bait and switch. let me illustrate further with this video clip.

here, i assert bill nye is equating observational science with historical science. i also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference. >> people with these deeply held religious beliefs, they embrace literal interpretation of the bible. as written in english. as a worldview. at the same time, they accept aspirin, antibiotic drugs and airplanes. but they are able to hold these two worldviews. this is a mystery. >> i suggest it's not a mystery. what i'm talking about antibiotic, aspirins, smoke detector, jet planes that's ken ham the observational science bloke. i am australian. we call guys blokes. i am willing to admit that. ye talks about that

-- i used to enjoy watching you on tv. that's bill nye observational science guy. but when he's talking about evolution and millions of years, i challenge that that is bill nye historical science guy. i challenge the evolutionist to admit the belief aspect of their particular world view. at the creation museum, we also -- we are only too willing to admit are believed the bible, but we also teach people between -- the difference between beliefs and what one can observe an experiment. i believe we're teaching people to criticize critically and think in the right terms about the science. i think it's the creationist that should be educating the kids out there because we're teaching them the right way to think. we admit origins of historical science is based upon the bible. i'm challenging evolutionists to admit the aspects and be up front. i am only too willing to admit my historical science is based upon the bible. let me define the term creation as we use it.

by creation, we mean here the we mean the account based on the bible. i take genesis as literal history as jesus did. we walk people through that history. we walk them through creation, god made adam and eve and sea creatures and so on. and then there was no death before sin. there was no death before sin. how can you have billions of dead things before men send -- sinned? flood you expect to find billions of animals in layers all over the earth. what do you find? billions of things buried in the rock. the tower of babel, god gave different languages, we get different people groups.

this is the anthropological, biological history as recorded in the bible, concerning what happened in the past. stepped inton history, jesus christ died on the cross and raised from the dead and one day there's going to be a new heaven and earth to come. not only is this a understanding geology,y to explain biology, astronomy, connect the present to the past, it is also a foundation for a worldview. ,n matthew 19 when jesus said for this show a man be joined to his wife and they will be one flesh. he quoted from genesis as literal history. god invented marriage, by the way, that's what marriage comes from, to be a man and a woman. not only marriage, ultimately every single biblical doctrine of theology directly or indirectly is founded in genesis. why is there sin in the world, genesis, why is there death, genesis, why did jesus die on the cross, genesis.

it's a very important book. it is the foundation to all christian doctrine. when you look at what i call the seven seas of history, think about how it all connects together. a perfect creation. sin and death entered the world, that's why god's son died on the cross and to conquer death. and offer a free gift of salvation. a reminder that the flood was a judgment because of man's wickedness but at the same time a message of god's grace and salvation. we need to go through a door to be saved. jesus christ said i am the door. buy me any man who enters and shall be saved. we make no apology about the fact in we're on about is this, if you confess with your mouth lord jesus, you will be saved. as soon as i say that people say see, if you allow creation in , schools, if you have students hear about it, this is religion. let me illustrate this talking about the recent battle in texas

over textbooks in the public schools. a newspaper report said -- textbook in classroom have long ranged in texas pitting creationists against academics. stop right there. notice creationists, academics. creationist can't be academics. it's the way things are worded out there. it's indoctrination going on. you're worried about ideology trumping fact -- you're talking about what you observe, or you talking about your beliefs about the past. cathy miller is the president of the texas freedom network. she has vocally spoken out about this textbook battle there in texas. the mission statement of the organization she's president of, says the texas freedom network advances mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right.

she makes this statement, science education, should be based on mainstream science education not on personal ideological beliefs. they want religious liberty and not personal ideological belief. i assert this -- public school textbooks are using the same word firsts -- for observational and historical science. they define science as naturalism. they present molecules to man evolution as fact. they are imposing their ideology on students. that is a religion. what do you mean by religious liberty, they tolerate their religion. the battle is really about authority. it's more than just science or evolution or creation. it's about who's the authority in this world, man or god? you start with naturalism then what about morals? who decides right and wrong? it's subjective, marriage. what do you want it to be? get rid of old people, why not.

they're costing us a lot of money, abortion, get rid of spare cats and spare kids. we are all animals. there are moral absolutes. god decides right and wrong, marriage, one man and one woman. sanctity of life. we are made in the image of god. life begins at fertilization so abortion is killing 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 of naturalism and that the bible can't be trusted. again, i say, creation is the viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. i am a science teacher. i want to see kids taught science. them the whole universe as a result of natural processes and not designed by a creating god they might be looking in the wrong places or have the wrong idea when they're looking at the creation in regard to how you develop

technology. if they are looking at random processes that can totally influence the way they think. if they understand it was a perfect world marred by sin, that and have a great effect and how they look to overcome diseases and problems in the world. i want children to be taught the right foundation that there's a god who created them, who loves them and who died on the cross for them and they are special and made in the image of god. [applause] >> thank you mr. ham. it did occur to me when you had my old friend larry king up there, you could have asked him. he's been around far long time. he's a smart guy. [laughter] he can probably answer for all of us. now let's all be attended to mr. nye.

>> thank you very much. mr. ham, i learned something. thank you. let's take it back around to the question at hand. does ken ham's creation model hold up? is it viable? for me, of course, take a look. we are here in kentucky on layer upon layer of limestone. i stop the side of the road today and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there. in these many layers, in this vicinity of kentucky, there are quarrel animals, fossil. when you look at it closely, you can see they lived their entire lives. they lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that. when the water conditions are correct. 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 we're standing on to have come into existence. my scientific colleagues go to places like greenland, the arctic, they go to antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits. it's not that extraordinary. many of you probably done it to putf to drill things locks in doors, for example. would pull out long cylinders of ice. long ice routes. these are made of snow. by long tradition it is called snow ice. snow ice forms in the winter as snowflakes are crushed together, trapping bubbles. the bubbles must needs be

ancient atmosphere. there is nobody running with hypodermic needles squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 680,000 winter-summer cycles. how could it be that just 4000 years ago all of this ice formed? let's run some numbers. these are some scenes from the antarctic. let's say we have 680,000 players -- layers of snow ice and 4000 years since the great flood. we need 170 winter summer cycles every year for the last 4000 years. wouldn't someone have noticed that? wow. wouldn't someone have noticed there's been winter and summer if we go to california, we find

bristle cone pines. some of them are over 680,000 years old. there's old tjikko over 9550 years old. how can these trees about there if there was a flood just 4000 years ago. you can try this yourself everybody. i don't mean to be mean to trees. get a sapling and put it under water for a year. it would not survive in general nor would it seed. how could these trees about that old if the earth is only 4000 years old? when we go to the grand canyon which is an astonishing place, i recommend to everybody in the world to visit the grand canyon. you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks. if there was this enormous flood

that you speak of, wouldn't there have been churning and bubbling and roiling. how would they settle out. your claim they settle out in a short amount of time is not satisfactory. in this picture, one type of sediment intruded on another type. if that was uniform, wouldn't you expect it all to be even without intrusion? furthermore you can find places in the grand canyon where you see an ancient river bed on that side and an ancient river bed on that side and the colorado river has cut through it. 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 canyons everywhere if this water drained away in that extraordinary short amount of time, 4000 years. when you look at these layerers carefully, you'll find these beautiful fossils. you find down low, you'll find what you might consider is rudimentary sea animals. up above you'll find the famous bites and clams and oysters and above that you'll 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 a higher. if it all happen such a extraordinary short amount of

time, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence? by the way, 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. they would embrace you, you would be a hero. you would change the world if you can find one example of that anywhere. people have 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. it's by no means representative of all the foss sell skulls that have been found but these are all over the place. if you were to look at these, i can assure you not any of them is a gorilla. if as mr. ham and his associates

claim, there was just man and then everybody else, there was just humans and all the species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls? how did all of these skulls get all over the earth and these extraordinary fashion, where would you put us? i can tell you we are on there. i encourage you when you go home to look it up. now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with mr. ham's world view, is that this giant boat, very large wooden ship went aground safely on a mountain in the middle east. 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 toe me is an extraordinary claim.

we expect them somewhere to find evidence of kangaroos. we expect to find some fossils or bones. somebody would have died along there. furthermore, there's a claim dallas a -- there's a land bridge. and that land bridge has disappeared in the last 4000 years. no navigator, no diver, no u.s. navy submarine. no one detected any evidence of this. your expectation is not met. it doesn't seem to hold up. there are 4000 years since ken ham's flood. let's say as he said many times there are 7000 times today the

very lowest estimate is there are about 8.7 million species but a much more reasonable estimate is 50 million or even a hundred million. when you start counting viruses and bacteria and the beetles in the tropical rain forest we haven't found. we'll take a number i think is pretty reasonable, 16 million species today. if these came from 7000 times, let's say we have 7000 subtracted from 15 million, that's 15993 we have 365 and a quarter days in a year, we'd expect to find 11 million new species everyday. you go out into your yard, you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird. you find a different kind of bird. whole new species a bird everyday. a new species of fish, new

species of organs you can't see. this would be enormous news, the last 4000 years. people would have seen these changes among us. the cincinnati inquirer would carry a column right next to the weather report. we see no evidence of that. there's no 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 747's. everybody relax, i was very well supervised. everything is fine. there was a tube in the 747 i think of my tube. that aside, i traveled the highways of washington state quite a bit. i was a young guy. he 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 there in regular academic pursuits, regular geology, people have discovered that there was -- used to be a lake what is now montana. which we refer to as lake massua. it's not there. the evidence is overwhelming. an ice damn would form. when you drive along the road and there are these rocks. if as is asserted here at this facility, that the heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event, the big rocks and especially their shape instead of aero dynamic the hydro

dynamic, the water changes shape. you expect them to sink to the bottom. here are these enormous rocks right on the surface. there's no shortage of them. if you go driving in washington state and oregon, they are readily available. how could those be there if the earth is just 4000 years old? if this one flood cause that? another remarkable thing i like everybody to consider, along inherent in this world view is that somehow, noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house 14,000 individuals. there are 7000 kinds and there's a boy and girl for each one of those. so it's about 14,000 people. these people were unskilled as far as anybody know, they never built a wooden ship. they had to get all of these

animals on them and had to feed them. i understand mr. ham have some explanations for that, which i frankly find extraordinary. this is the premise of the bit. ... this vote had great difficulty. it was not as big as the titanic, but a very long ship. it would twist nec. -- nec. -- in the sea. did leak like crazy. they could not keep the chef that ship dry.

there were 14 crewmen aboard a ship rights in new england. big --uld not build a -- boat as big as the one that the arc is claimed to be. if you visit the national zoo it is 163 acres. they have 400 species. this picture you're seeing was taken by spacecraft in space orbiting the earth. this place is often deeply

concerning for how it treats its animals. the reason that they were able to maintain 14,000 animals and their cells and feed them. aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone has been able to build. what we want in science, science is practiced 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 put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of washington, d.c. and predict if we provide this much room for an elephant it will live healthily for certain amount of time. i will give you an example.

the explanation provided by traditional science of how we came to be, we find as mr. hamm alluded to -- a sequence of animals in what generally is called the fossil record. you find a sequence of animals, a succession. as one might expect when you're looking at old records there is some pieces seem to be missing. a gap. scientists got to thinking about this. they are frogs and toes -- toads. people wondered if there was not a fossil or an organism, and animal that had lived who had characteristics of both.