In the face of scientific evidence that the environment is in crisis, studies consistently reveal evangelicals’ reluctance to address environmental issues. This tension between science and the church bears surprising resemblances to the Galileo affair of 1633, when the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to repudiate his Copernican teachings as heretical. Both conflicts stem from a perceived dearth of evidence, biblical literalism, and complex political factors.

This presentation discusses some of these parallels between evangelicals’ environmental skepticism and the church’s condemnation of Galileo, and it explores what evangelicals can learn from the Galileo affair about how to avoid the mistakes of the past and care for the earth.

Virginia's Calling presents a young conservative Christian's testimony of how she was called to climate advocacy. Conference attendees are encouraged to preview the trailer or the 30-minute film at www.virginiascalling.org.

Virginia is a home-schooling mom who dismisses climate change as a liberal "political thing" until her home floods in a hurricane, provoking a spiritual crisis. In her quest to understand, she develops an unlikely friendship with a local scientist and ultimately finds a new way of serving God and loving her neighbors: Virginia has become an award-winning community educator and advocate for addressing flooding and climate change.

Designed to spark fruitful conversations, the film has been called "a gift to the church and to every follower of Christ asking themselves how best to follow Jesus in a warming world. Exactly what we need right now."

The filmmaker (Barry), together with Virginia herself, will present suggestions and invite discussion on using the film in college classrooms and church and community settings.

Although the vast majority of scientists (97%) had come to a consensus that human activities are the main cause of climate change and a 2020 survey indicates that about 60% of US participants are either alarmed or concerned by global warming, it seems that the Christian church does not take an active role in addressing the crisis. The root of this position could be traced back to the anthropocentric view and the theology of dominion derived from Genesis 1:26. Interestingly, the same passage could also be interpreted as the proclamation of stewardship of the natural world. Further, some theologians argue that the concept of substantiality is found in the Old Testament. For instance, God commanded his people that during the first three years of growth, certain plants are not to be eaten because they are God’s properties. However, Christians who subscribe to the dispensational approach to eschatology tend to downplay the importance of creation care.

In addition to disagreement in theology, key opinion leaders in the Christian church (e.g., pastors, theologians, and Christian professors) also argue on the science of climate change. Today many evangelicals are skeptical of climate change or consider anti-same-sex marriage a high priority over environmental protection. To rectify this situation, the authors attempt to investigate the reasoning behind diverse attitudes toward creation care and climate held by various key opinion leaders in the Christian church. In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data are utilized in order to obtain a holistic view of the phenomenon under study.

This talk asks how chemistry might be contextualized within Genesis’s account of creation, including its portrayal of humans as having a capacity for relationship with God and called to image God as they fill, subdue, and rule over a good created order. Using examples, it explores

• whether relational understandings of the imago Dei validate thinking about scientific study of matter as an opportunity, however precarious, to encounter divine wisdom
• to what extent chemists’ efforts to develop elegant syntheses, innovative analytical methods, and useful technologies might profitably be viewed as a chemist’s exercise of the imago Dei, reflective of God’s own making use of creation’s inbuilt potentialities when ordering the cosmos
• in what ways chemists’ efforts to transform culture through scientific discovery and technological achievement might function as an expression of the ultimate purposes for which humanity was created

Attention will be given to chemists’ role as moral vision-casters, fallibility, and susceptibility to sin.

Random processes, including both quantum indeterminacy and the amplification of uncertainty by nonlinear dynamics, are deeply embedded in the physical world. Can uncertainty and chaos be harmonized with the Christian view of a righteous God?

I begin by describing key aspects of the random processes themselves, such as Bell's theorem in quantum mechanics and the Lyapunov exponent in chaos theory. Several additional considerations then bear upon my attempt to answer the question, including the righteousness of God as it is described in the Bible; the possibility that indeterminacy provides "cover" for some kinds of divine action; and instances in which random number generation technology has been employed in the service of fairness and justice in society.

I will also broach the confounding issue of random processes leading to natural evil. I conclude that random processes are integral to the divinely ordained functioning of the creation.

In 1981, a scientist and a philosopher worked together to understand the limits of human control over nature. They met when the Catholic philosopher Rene Girard invited the 1977 Chemistry Nobelist Ilya Prigogine to a 1981 symposium, Disorder and Order. Prigogine spoke on chemical kinetics and Girard on social patterns in mythology.

Prigogine and Girard agree that

1. Chaos is a constant threat to chemical and social systems, unpredictable and inevitable.
2. Systems maintain dynamic order by expelling chaos (entropic dissipation for Prigogine, or accused scapegoat for Girard).
3. The observer is always implicated in the chaotic chemical or social system being observed.

The 1981 symposium left many questions unresolved, partially because of a Babel-like confusion over terms like “turbulence.” Careful reading of the symposium proceedings finds parallels between Prigogine’s autocatalytic reactions and Girard’s mobs seized by mimetic rivalry. Both are differentiated, dynamic systems far from equilibrium with structured oscillations and circular causality. Such systems emerge from groups and relations rather than individuals, and impose constraints on future behavior and knowledge. We are trapped in reciprocal rivalries.

Elsewhere, Girard made theological connections between mimetic rivalries and the biblical agents of chaos, such as floods and sea monsters. At our own wits’ end, hope is revealed when Jesus enters the chaotic waters, taking the chaos upon himself as the innocent scapegoat who brings peace.

Computational biologist S. Joshua Swamidass' book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, has aroused considerable dialogue between science and different religious points of view. He proposes a recent Adam and Eve (ca. 10kya) created de novo by God, ancestors of us all, a view which he claims is fully compatible with contemporary evolutionary biology. This work raises questions about the limits of science, the dialogue between religion and science, and interdisciplinary questions about the meaning of "human" that matter to both secular and religious scholars alike.

There are 114 million people who do not have access to any scriptures in their native language, and another 1.5 billion people who do not have access to the entire Bible in their native language. Translation is still lacking for thousands of minority languages.

All the Word Bible Translators, Inc. is developing software that is capable of translating the entire Bible and other Christian literature much faster than manual translation. We use a computer-internal representation of meaning, and a rules-based system for generation that results in an accurate translation, often needing additional editing only to improve naturalness and clarity.

Here we concentrate on recent developments to represent different types of translations that are either more literal or more dynamic. We have three different mechanisms that allow us to insert complex concepts into our translations. Because these complex concepts can be turned on or off individually, our system can generate what is effectively an infinite number of possible translations. In addition, there are other options to include or exclude implicit information and to choose between interpretive alternates when the meaning of the original biblical text is not clear.

According to Christian philosopher Albert Borgmann, we live in a “culture of technology.” It is not just that we use many technological devices, but that we have learned to think about our devices in a particular way. A device is reduced to its external interface: what does it do? Implementation details are hidden, assumed to be incomprehensible and irrelevant to a typical user. This way of thinking, what Borgmann calls “the device paradigm,” tends also to be over-generalized, so that we think in a similar way even about things we would not call technological. And this over-generalization of the device paradigm has moral and theological implications as it impacts one’s expectations of other people, of the natural world, and of God.

I believe we should teach STEM, not just because we hope to prepare students for future employment, but because of the potential for STEM education to change the way they think about technology. As students grow in their understanding of how things work—as they develop an appreciation for the scientific principles and creative ideas behind technologies formerly understood in only a superficial way—my hope is that the device paradigm will be undermined in their way of thinking. The self-centered expectation that our tools should “just work” as advertised—leading to frustration when they don’t and boredom when they do—will perhaps be replaced by a growing sense of engagement, curiosity, and gratitude.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 states, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” This seems quite logical for the agrarian society of that time, but perhaps inapplicable to recent technological developments. Many technological advances primarily mediate human interactions, and so are readily placed into a Christian ethical context. A few seem to be genuinely novel, requiring significant thought and analysis; many more are promoted far beyond their ultimate power or utility by marketers or academics with various agendas.

Social media sites appear superficially to just mediate conversations between a user and their “friends,” and so might be likened to a telephone. In reality, the controlling software is enormously complex, and its goals are to maximize the income of the organization. The Economist recently noted that “Social media, driven as its commercial interests are by the desire to ‘go viral,’ offers ways to inject the equivalent of computer viruses into the public’s political information processing, degrading and distorting its output through misinformation, emotional incontinence and cognitive sabotage.”

The large-scale effects of social media on popular opinion and on political events such as the US and Brexit elections of 2016 have been well documented. The nonpolitical effects on ordinary users who have devoted large fractions of their free time to social networking are being studied by sociologists, and should be discussed by Christians. This talk will address the situation and suggest possible responses.

Traditional readings of the early chapters of Genesis assume the historicity of the events recorded there in order to ground and preserve two theological convictions: (1) the universality of sin (grounded in “original sin”); and (2) the goodness of God (a human “fall” allows us to account for the origins of evil without making God its author). However, a historical reading is neither necessary nor sufficient to ground these convictions.

In this presentation, I offer a theological proposal for understanding Genesis 1–3 that does not depend on a historical Adam and Eve. Specifically, I offer a re-narration of the “creation and fall” events in light of a theological reading of 1 Corinthians 15. Reflections on the latter are aided by the theological tradition, especially Patristic insights and more recent theological work on the Incarnation (specifically, the growing prevalence of “incarnation anyway” theologies). In short, we have to read the beginning (creation) in light of the end (consummation), because both have been reframed by the middle (the Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).

If this proposal succeeds, it allows us to retain theological convictions concerning universal sin and the goodness and ultimate triumph of God over sin, without assuming the historicity of Adam and Eve (or “the Fall”). Getting beyond the “historicity of Adam” question (largely a distraction) helps us to frame the scriptural narrative in a way that is more theologically productive and focus instead on what’s most central to both the Bible and the Christian theological tradition.

Thinkers of all stripes have long pondered, what is the nature of the human soul? The Bible itself does not give a clear and detailed answer to this question (even though one of its goals seems to be the development and ultimate destiny of our soul), and JudeoChristian thinking on it has meandered all over this question.

Generally speaking, the vast majority of those sitting in the pews of our churches fully accept substance dualism: the idea that humans comprise a material body and an immaterial soul. Furthermore, the vast majority of people in general—both Christian and non-Christian—believe that substance dualism is a key and central tenet of Christian theology: to reject substance dualism is to give up Christian faith.

Yet many scholars who have considered human ontology at the deepest levels—including Christian scholars—have found reasons to conclude that substance dualism “doesn’t work.” Recently, some of these have found ways to explain the human soul using largely naturalistic mechanisms (note: the human spirit may be an entirely different matter).

In this presentation, I will delineate several reasons why scholars (including Christian ones) challenge substance dualism, and will present an alternative naturalistic explanation for the human soul, one which is consistent with a fully Christian faith. This not only allows Christian believers to integrate the growing science on this question, but also leads to a better understanding of mental health and its treatment than approaching the latter as an immaterial substance.

How does our scientific understanding of time continue to evolve and how might this communicate our understanding of God’s involvement with creation? Einstein’s special relativity radically changed our understanding of time. Assuming a constant speed of light, Einstein demonstrated that two events, apparently simultaneous in one reference frame, may not be simultaneous in another in relative motion. This differed from Newton’s mechanics that assumes time moves on, unrelentingly in the background of our universe (a common layperson’s assumption). Schrödinger’s solution to the relativistic wave equation in quantum mechanics identified zitterbewegung, suggesting components of the electron move at the speed of light.

Here, special relativity is reexamined with the assumption that the subcomponents of all matter move at a constant speed of light. This allows further insights to the nature of time: “Time is Motion” and the speed of light is the “speed of time.” This also suggests replacing the convention for simultaneity of “synchronized” time with the convention of “isochronous” time—where two events linked by a signal moving at the speed of light would be considered as “simultaneous.” This maintains “causality” while providing a consistent definition for simultaneity and time-space symmetry in all reference frames. Time is always determined relative to a selected, individual point. Our description of time is subject to mathematical convention. This is important when we contemplate a God who is external to time, who operates within time, and who has given us scriptures that make many references to time.

I have been speaking in secular high schools (among other places) since 1991, beginning with The International School of Geneva (La Châtaigneraie campus), the founding school for the International Baccalaureate curriculum now being used in nearly 3,200 schools at the high-school level globally in English-based education (nearly 6,000 schools at all levels and available languages). I have spoken at nearly 300 of these and other international schools, many of them multiple times, in 43 countries over the years, mostly since 2002 when I began to do it as my sole ministry, what I call a “stealth ministry,” since I have to minimize my connection to professional Christendom in order to get invited to speak.

The students in these schools are the best and the brightest of the next generation of the world’s leaders, some examples being Jeff Bezos, Kim Jong-un (who attended a school in Basel at which I have spoken several times), the late Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej, Chad Mars of the Mars Candy family, writer Pico Iyer, General Norman Schwartzkopf, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and a host of others.

There is a course called Theory of Knowledge (TOK) which is, roughly speaking, a course in epistemology that asks the question of the students, “How do we know what we know?” It proceeds to examine all of the roots of human inquiry—history, science, mathematics, linguistics, art, music, philosophy, metaphysics, and religion, among others. It does not often do a very good job with respect to religion, and especially with religion and science, unless the TOK teacher happens to have some measure of personal faith. The answer, by the way, to “how do we know what we know” at the end of the year is, “we don’t know how we know what we know.”

I have spent a lot of time over the years being exposed to arguments against God and reactions against my talks from students, teachers, administrators, parents, and militant atheists. As a result, I’ve learned both how to respond with solid science, and how not to respond with Christian clichés.

The talks as they have evolved reflect that. They are all science, all the time, with never a reference to any religion or theology. They are Big Bang-friendly, old Earth and old universe. I get as much grief from young-earth creationists as from no-gods atheists. I have a narrow line to walk in the hundreds, maybe thousands of talks that I’ve given.

Self-assessment of learning is a formative and important part of learning, especially as students move from an academic setting to the real world. Because lifelong learning is important in many disciplines, and in faith and the sciences in particular, a student’s ability to self-assess what they know and how they know it is a key life skill. In addition, synthesis of information is a skill lacking in many undergraduate students and graduates. Being able to take information from many sources, distill the key points, and apply it to one’s personal life, discipline, or learning is a key skill for any graduate.

To this end, I developed a writing exercise for a senior-level faith and science course taken by all of Lipscomb’s Biology majors. Entitled “What I Learned This Month,” this exercise asks students to review and reflect on the material covered every 3–4 weeks of the course and to self-select 3 topics that have been most impactful to their learning in the course. Their essays detail not only the concepts they learned, but how it has impacted their learning, faith, or worldview as well.

I present the logic behind the assignment, the requirements of it, and examples of student responses to a breadth of material covering origins, biological evolution, geology, as well as theological material on Genesis, hermeneutics, Adam and Eve, and the Image of God. Outcomes include a concluding assignment where student essays illustrate their worldview at the conclusion of the course.

While faith integration activities in science classes at Christian universities are important for forming students’ understanding of their faith, these activities may also affect students’ views about science itself. We will present data from a quasi-experimental study conducted in introductory physics classes. Students’ epistemologies about science become less expert-like in classes that did not incorporate faith integration activities, but remained stable in classes with faith integration activities focused on characteristics and habits of successful scientists. The faith integration activities primarily affected students’ views on the source of ability to learn science, with the largest effects for students with less expert-like views of science before the course.

Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole. The first verse of Genesis implies that cosmology is relevant to all Bible believers, so we should all be interested in the recent work of cosmologists. In the 1960s, cosmologists experimentally confirmed that there was a cosmic beginning, the “Big Bang.” The recent missions of the WMAP and Planck satellites, which measured the remnant radiation spectrum of the Big Bang, marked the beginning of precision cosmology. No sooner did we achieve this than cosmologists found ways to penetrate beyond our universe into a realm that cannot be directly observed—only indirectly—as “murmurs” of a multiverse.

Humans are always driven by curiosity to look beyond what is known toward mysteries such as dark matter, dark energy, and the multiverse. So, what methods of reasoning are cosmologists using to reach beyond the data? And what meaning can be drawn from the new cosmic discoveries?

The introduction of affordances¹ in ecological psychology by James Gibson has helped to clarify the connectedness of organisms and their environments, and further understanding of niche construction. Engineering researchers have recently adopted this concept, and extended its definition² to assist in the design and reverse engineering of both artificial and natural complex systems.

Jonathan Maier has developed an Affordance Structure Matrix, which is a graphical tool for concept exploration and evaluation during affordance based design and reverse engineering. This tool is being extended by the authors in an effort to better understand the history, purpose, and ingenuity associated with both artificial and natural systems. Affordances, especially in natural systems, appear in complex sequences of dependencies in both space and time. This layered “nestedness” is indicative of ingenuity, a concept that is difficult to measure, but captured, to some degree, by this new graphical representation.

In addition, further insight may be obtained regarding the origin, development and purpose of natural systems by considering this landscape of affordances in the light of a Christian worldview.

Notes:
¹In ecological psychology, an affordance is a relationship between an agent (or end user) and the environment that allows for a potential (positive or negative) action to be taken.

²In engineering, relationships between parts of a complex system, which ultimately contribute to an end user affordance, are also recognized as a kind of affordance, called part-to-part affordances.

Evolutionary creationists believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life, including men and women, through an ordained, sustained, and intelligently designed evolutionary process. This view of origins is held by Christians who are distinctly evangelical. Evolutionary creationists also believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God that was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, most evangelical Christians find it difficult to embrace the Lord creating through evolution and Holy Scripture being inerrant. As a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and a research associate in paleontology, I will propose that biblical inerrancy features five aspects: (1) Inerrancy is rooted in the character of God in that he never intentionally lies; (2) Jesus Christ fulfills inerrancy by revealing biblical revelation is progressive; (3) The process of biblical inspiration is inerrant and the Bible is exactly what the Holy Spirit intended to offer humankind; (4) The spiritual truths in scripture are inerrant and they form the foundations of Christian faith; (5) Divine accommodation is inerrant in that the Lord descended to the spiritual and intellectual level of the inspired biblical authors in order to reveal himself to them as effectively as possible.

The central hermeneutical concept in this approach to biblical inerrancy is that scripture has an ancient phenomenological perspective of the physical world informed only by human natural senses (e.g., the naked eye). This is not to be confused or conflated with our modern phenomenological perspective of the physical world that is built upon the vast array of scientific instruments (e.g., microscopes and telescopes). As a result, the Bible features an ancient science, the science-of-the-day in the ancient Near East. The Holy Spirit employed this ancient phenomenological understanding of the creation as an incidental vessel to deliver the life-changing inerrant messages of faith in the Bible.

Why the genocides in the book of Joshua? Why is Old Testament biblegod so mean and nasty? Why not only human suffering, but animal suffering as well? And … where did we get the idea that there’s anything “wrong” with any of this?

Christian theodicy says free will is required to make a person a moral agent, thus capable of obeying God and loving others; thus evil is inevitable. But this principle extends not just to humans but also to the whole biosphere.

Not only are humans endowed with agency (beings with capacity to act freely) but all 10³⁰ cells on Earth possess agency to some lesser degree. Without agency, evolution and “negative entropy” (as Erwin Schrödinger described it in his 1943 book What Is Life) are impossible. Evolution divides life, which evolves by itself, from computers—which lack agency and can only evolve with human intervention.

The Sermon on the Mount was the original counter-Darwinian manifesto … but until we acknowledge the prior freedom (and conflict) baked into the fabric of the universe, our explanations of good vs. evil fall short. We cannot actualize the modern miracle of equality and human rights. Only a cosmos with the freedom to evolve has the capacity for love. Only after we acknowledge agency as central to all of life can our aspirations of education and health care for all citizens finally make sense.

Miracles—exceptions to natural law—can be divided between miracles that are needed to sustain the observed order in nature (order-of-nature miracles) and miracles that are brought about by God for specific purposes at specific times and which are not needed to sustain the observed order within nature (specific-point miracles). All of the miracles in the Bible are specific-point miracles, with the possible exception of the initial creation. Further, if God is both all-powerful and all-knowing, it is unsurprising that he might create an exquisitely ordered universe, one where, at no point, does he need to do (order-of-nature) miracles to sustain the natural order. But this does not tell us whether God would engage in specific-point miracles.

The success of science points to a world without order-of-nature miracles, but it is silent with regard to specific-point miracles. This argument will be clarified and defended against several objections.

Merging science and faith in meaningful ways holds several benefits for students. Biblical and biological study not only enhances science and faith literacy of students, but it is also a key component that addresses the pursuit of truth and purpose. Research shows that most 18─22 year olds don’t go to church. The years students spend on campus are filled with questioning and searching for answers. The college campus therefore, provides unique opportunities to help students find the truth—observed in the world and revealed in the word.

Science serves as a starting point to make known the unknown God similar to that of Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Teaching Microbiology creates context to carry out Christ’s commission, thereby reversing the trend of the need for getting young people to come to church. This presentation will discuss some specific student responses and implications for Christian professors to consider careers in academia as a mission field and present Christ to students learning science in a religiously diverse classroom.

Those interested in the intersection of science and Christianity rightfully pay attention to specific issues in the landscape of science and religion. Despite the progress made in science-religion scholarship, it often appears that these advances make little real-life progress; the conflict narrative persists. Indeed, research published in the past few years indicates that in some circumstances, the role of scientist is conflated with an atheistic worldview.

The goal of this presentation is to suggest that for progress in difficult conversations, such as those between science and Christianity, we must acknowledge and account for the psychology of the individuals engaging in these conversations. Drawing from recent research in psychology, I will discuss how normal psychological processes involved in reasoning may influence engagement with science-religion material. Special attention will be given to how culture, motivated reasoning, and implicit bias influence the perception of data and arguments from science and Christianity. Notably, these psychological influences that have little to do with the data and arguments themselves and much to do with pre-existing filters for processing and engaging information. Drawing from this and related social science research, evidenced-based suggestions will be offered to increase the fruitfulness of science-faith communication.

The opportunity to teach in a distant setting has been a platform for serving hard-working and dedicated traditional and nontraditional professionals. The distant education platform takes away one of the most influential aspects of communication, face-to-face interaction; however, it does offer a unique platform to honoring our students with Christ being at the heart of every conversation, lecture, and learning activity.

Learning science and math in an online accelerated course can be challenging to students due to the great deal of information to process and the lack of personal motivation. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure a student-centered learning experience that not only alleviates these challenges, but also offers a supportive learning environment. We can do that effectively by honoring our students. That not only serves in recognizing student efforts, but it also allows us instructors to display God in our teaching and glorify him as we serve him every day.

Groundbreaking COVID-19 vaccination technology is the gift of many scientists working together to understand the world God gave us. Join us to hear from experts who can help us understand the steps along the way, from development to distribution to followup research. We'll learn from a panel of scientists and then connect in small groups to discuss take-homes for our own vocations. Panelists include Patricia Fitzgerarld-Bocarsly, immunologist and Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS) Provost; and Kelly Seaton, a researcher at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute.

In Hebrews 11, Abel, Enoch, and Noah are described as “Heroes of the Faith” in the same way as the later patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Hence, it is not surprising that most Christians throughout history have recognized all of these as historical figures. However, more recently, many evangelicals have questioned whether there was any “true faith” before Abraham.

In most cases, this disbelief was based on the emergence of scientific evidence that appeared to contradict the early chapters of Genesis. I suggest, however, that this reflects a misunderstanding of the historical context and aims of Genesis 1–11. Firstly, the earth was not actually created in seven historical days, but the Genesis 1 creation story does appear to be modeled on a real historical event: Noah’s Flood. Secondly, not all Middle Eastern peoples were descendants of Noah, but they did spread out from Mesopotamia after the agricultural revolution in a very similar way. Finally, the original Tower of Babel was not actually built at Babylon, but its construction was followed by a cultural collapse that saw the fragmentation of Middle Eastern culture, language, and writing.

There is no archaeological record of Abraham, and therefore no scientific basis for believing that he was the first historical patriarch. According to Genesis, humans began to call on the name of the True God before the Flood. This is why the historicity of Genesis is important for faith.

Several ASA members have written extensively on the scientific evidence demonstrating that Noah’s Flood could not have been a recent global event. Nevertheless, this evidence has been ignored or dismissed by global flood proponents, who express a high regard for scripture but openly distrust the findings of science. In my numerous debates and discussions with ministry leaders and theology professors who hold to a global flood view, I have found that they give little if any attention to the many Flood-related biblical texts beyond Genesis, such as relevant passages in the wisdom books and the New Testament epistles.

In many cases, I have gained a hearing for the scientific evidence by showing how a literal and consistent interpretation of all relevant biblical passages indicates the limited scope of the Flood. Some even state, explicitly, that it did not cover the entirety of Earth’s surface. If need be, I point out how word studies on Genesis 6–8 published by global flood theologians actually refute their own premise of a global flood. The ultimate goal, here, is to help achieve a breakthrough for Christians who harbor fear of an unresolvable conflict between scientific reality and biblical truth.

The difficulty in understanding the nature of the Genesis 1 “days,” which puzzled St. Augustine in his book The City of God, has been mitigated by the wealth of accumulated scientific astronomical evidence. Yet, the Christian community continues to debate the “creation day” question and has, at present, failed to reach a consensus on how the days should be interpreted—whether literally or figuratively.

The Genesis 1 interpretation presented here harmonizes with modern science, and it shows that the narrative describes the world’s creation in the context of two time periods: first, the beginning and still-evolving creation of the universe; and second, the God-decreed transformation of the earth. The earth’s transformation is divided into six days by a refrain; which according to linguistic analyses, reveals that the refrain also defines a work-and-rest pattern for humans. Therefore, in light of scientific evidence, the word “day” has a dual meaning: in relation to creation, it refers to a long period of unspecified duration; but in relation to humans, it denotes an ordinary day of twenty-four hours. The explanatory verses of the fourth commandment also employ the dual usage of the word “day”: in Exodus 20:9, the ordinary days of humans’ labor are patterned after the long days of the earth’s transformation referenced in Exodus 20:11.

Included in the presentation are timelines of the two creation time periods that graphically illustrate the fallacies of other interpretations and promise to settle the “creation day” question once and for all.

Science and Christian theology resist boundaries—each has something to say about everything. They both seek to discover how reality can be most fully known and rely on models, metaphors, and analogies to know and represent reality. The most well-known of the models describing the relationship between science and religion is Ian Barbour’s fourfold typology of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. These and the subsequently developed models can be useful tools for gaining a deeper understanding of the relationships between science and Christian theology. Simple generalizations of these relationships are inappropriate and potentially misleading. They should be employed with an awareness of their limitations and distortions. The models we use to describe the relationships between Christianity and science depend partially on their interfaces and contexts. So for now, we have to content ourselves with a wide variety of overlapping ways of understanding these relationships.

This presentation explores the use of models and metaphors within the Christianity and science domains. First, the role of models and metaphors in science and theology are discussed. Next, a theology of nature is used to highlight advantages and shortfalls that may exist even within a widely used model. A final section argues that discussions of the relationship between science and religion are by nature contextual. Even within the broadly defined category, Christian, marked differences exist. The relationships between Christianity and science should not be conducted on the assumption that there is a kind of generic, amorphous Christian religion void of the more-specific beliefs and practices of the various Christian denominations and individual churches.

The Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks were the first civilizations to study mathematics, with the Greeks often credited with the first systematic study of the subject matter circa 600 BC.

Around 300 BC, Euclid (most famous for Euclidean geometry) wrote 13 books that all of mathematics and science is based-off still to this day. In particular, in book one, Euclid describes the axiomatic method. He basically states that all logical thought processes start with axioms, postulates, and undefined terms. Axioms are statements or as he put it, common notions that one sets (or believes) to be true without proof. Postulates are essentially the same thing, but they are believed to be true about the natural world. Axioms do not have to describe the natural world.

In addition to axioms and postulates, we need to have some undefined terms. The general idea of the axiomatic method is that you must have starting points you can’t prove but believe to be true, and then prove everything else based on those starting points. Likewise, you must have words you can’t define, and then define all other words based on those undefined words (terms). Otherwise, proofs and definitions would be circular.

I will argue that this process is analogous to the way theologians think.

Contemporary discussions on artificial intelligence concern whether artificial intelligence that is attributed to electronic machines, such as digital computers, is qualitatively different from that of natural intelligence ascribed to human beings. In this regard, there are two main reactions. Some theorists claim that whatever difference that is said to exist between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence is a matter of degree. By contrast, others claim that the two species of intelligence are different in kind. Resolving this controversy is often assumed to require some sort of empirical solution.

The goal of computer scientists who work on the Strong-AI hypothesis is significantly different from those who work on Weak-AI. In the case of Weak-AI, computer scientists are interested in inventing machines that have high information processing capacity displaying human-like ability. In this case, we do not confront any serious metaphysical problems, no matter what the machines are said to be capable of doing. So Weak-AI does not raise any direct challenge for the metaphysics of the self and phenomenal consciousness. By contrast, Strong-AI raises significant challenges for the metaphysics of the self and phenomenal consciousness.

In this presentation, I aim to explore two problems: (1) the maker-product gap problem and (2) the wrong location problem. The former problem arises partly from assuming that artificial intelligence can be superior to that of natural intelligence, whereas the latter problem arises from misunderstanding the nature of the relation between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence. These problems are interrelated. Any solution proposed to tackle one of these problems will have an implication for the other.

In the last half-century, a small but disproportionately influential movement known as “transhumanism” has arisen, offering an alternative ground for optimism and ethical motivations in the wake of the widespread disillusionment with the Christian narrative. While a predominantly atheistic movement, transhumanism nevertheless subsumes Christian eschatological categories and populates them with technological surrogates. Cleansed of “medieval” delusions of a future divine liberation, humanity, they assert, might now refresh its transcendental hopes upon the solid rock of scientific progress. In a cosmos devoid of the divine, our destiny is to fill that vacancy.

In this presentation, I ask whether the transhumanist conception of human destiny truly provides a superior metaphysical and ethical grounding for humanity’s desire for transcendence. Although transhumanism is not incompatible with Christianity, atheistic proponents such as Ray Kurzweil and Yuval Noah Harari regard it as an alternative to Christian faith. I will, therefore, treat their works as competing narratives to Christian eschatology and soteriology.

I begin by examining the optimistic forms of transhumanism—namely through the recent and widely popular works of Kurzweil and Harari—and ask whether the eschatological vision proffered by each contributor provides a satisfactory alternative to the Christian tradition they attempt to supplant. Conveniently, critiques of their respective positions fall neatly into the categories of the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and love. From this, I will conclude that pessimistic transhumanism is the most rational form of atheistic transhumanism. Thus, transhumanism fails to provide an adequate narrative for grounding human hopes, vocation, and ethical principles.

Genetic manipulation of populations has been practiced through history. There is a biblical precedent: Jacob’s savvy use of Mendelian genetic principles created a population change of spotted sheep exclusively (recessive trait), leading to a bountiful herd [Genesis 30].

Relatively recent advances in gene editing, by way of the CRISPR/Cas9 system, have triggered an explosion of studies and applications of the technology by which we are now able to precisely remove and replace segments of DNA. With such great promise, there are concerns regarding the impact of gene editing on the individual, populations, and culture at large.

Applications of gene editing may be classified in several ways: somatic vs. germline and therapeutic vs. enhancement. The debate considers the potential to ease suffering, the extinction of genetic diseases, but also the lack of clear definition for what a significant disability really is. The slippery slope of defining disabilities may expand generally into undesirable traits which would be subjective and very likely applied unequally. Access to technologies and benefits from genetic modification are concerns in a world with significant wealth disparities.

The scientific community has debated the ethical use of gene editing, but the low cost and easy technique of CRISPR/Cas9 mean that this process can be completed outside of traditional scientific settings. In this session, we will explore the applications of gene editing in practice (both sanctioned and unsanctioned), the ethical parameters of the technology, and the role of the faith-based community may take to shape the future of individual and population modifications.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects 3.5 million Americans. While the definition of autism encompasses a variety of levels of severity, it is generally understood as a disorder that affects the social behavior of an individual.

Autism is mainly characterized by the “Triad of Impairments:” social communication, social interaction, and social imagination. These three areas of socialization are referred to as “Theory of Mind.” This states that in order for humans to communicate with others effectively, they must have an insight into another's mind and intentions by picking up on cues such as body language and tone of voice. “It is argued that people with autism don't have theory of mind and therefore find communication and relationships difficult because they don't know what is going on within the mind of the other and can't anticipate in the ways necessary for good communication and effective relationships” (Swinton 2014).

Theory of Mind has been neurologically linked to mirror neurons in the brain. Mirror neurons are a class of visuomotor neurons, which is of, or relating to, visual and muscular function. Studies suggest that mirror neuron dysfunction plays a role in impaired social relationships seen in autism. Since spiritual experiences encompass a relational component, the question is addressed of whether those with ASD are capable of having a spiritual relationship with God.

The recent dramatic rise in the incidence of gender dysphoria and the number of transgender individuals has caused challenges within the church, as Christians struggle to relate this condition to a biblical model of sex and gender. Given the invasive and sometimes irreversible treatments that are used in gender transition, it is important to understand the neurobiology of gender dysphoria, to see if restoring the unity of sex and gender might be accomplished by less extreme measures.

Earlier studies on gender dysphoria compared anatomical regions of the brain between men and women, and then examined them in transgendered individuals. However, these studies could not distinguish whether these anatomical differences were the cause or effect (nature vs. nurture) of transgender behavior. Moreover, the function of these structures in gender identity is not well known.

More recently, a shift in the nature vs. nurture debate has occurred, such that many male-female differences are thought to be a result of conditioning rather than a genetic or hormonal predetermination. Rippon argues in Gender and Our Brains (Pantheon Books, 2019) that our culture imposes an artificial sense of what being male or female should be, which incidentally is inconsistent with that described in Proverbs 31. Thus, gender dysphoria may be an incongruence between one’s perception and society’s imposed expectations. Finally, Gliske proposes “A New Theory of Gender Dysphoria Incorporating the Distress, Social Behavioral, and Body-Ownership Networks” (2019) that gender dysphoria results from changes in the distress, social behavioral, and body-ownership networks. These novel explanations of the neurological basis of gender may lead to less invasive treatments for gender dysphoria by addressing underlying conditions and cultural expectations.

The discovery of a distinct class of neurons that united sensory and motor information in the F5 ventral premotor area of the macaque monkey began the exploration of neurons’ impact on social cognition. Additionally, this class of neurons, later termed as mirror neurons, was found in the human brain. This class of neurons was seen to be active in the performance of a motor action as well as in the observation of that same action performed by another individual. The action of mirror neurons is explored utilizing modern techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), MEG, EEG, as well as imaging methods such as fMRI and PET. Several studies have suggested a role in mirror neurons in several social disorders such as autism. Recently, discoveries have been made to link mirror neurons to emotional response as well as the ability to relate well with other individuals. This has led to the exploration of empathy and the relationship to mirror neurons. Studies have suggested that mirror neurons play a significant role in the development of empathetic behaviors, and called for a further investigation into the role of mirror neurons on cognition and emotional psyche.

More recently, an interest in mindfulness and the impact of acts of mindfulness—such as prayer, worship, or meditation—have led to an increase in studies regarding the neurobiological activity in relation to the Theory of Mind. Given the recent discoveries surrounding mirror neurons and their role in empathy and social cognition, a relationship between mirror neurons and the emotional and spiritual response to corporate worship should be explored. The neurobiology of corporate worship has been widely unexplored and provides a union between physical, emotional, and spiritual response. The purpose of this review is to analyze several studies that have begun to explore the relationship between theory of mind, worship, and mirror neurons, as well as serving to propose several directions for future studies.

Sustainable engineering is increasing viewed as a critical aspect of the practice of engineering. Most modern engineering codes of conduct have statements include sustainability as an important topic for engineering practice. Our accreditation organization, ABET, has recently added sustainability as a required topic.

We have responded by making sustainability a significant part of our curriculum. This includes both required and elective courses. As a Christian university, faith-related aspects of sustainability are incorporated into these classes. All engineering students are required to take an ethics course. Almost all of them take one of the two following courses:

EGR 3305 Social and Ethical Issues in Engineering

EGR 3315 Ethics of International Service

Within the mechanical engineering program there is a major sustainability component added into the required materials engineering course:

ME 3322 Mechanical Engineering Materials and Manufacturing Processes

We have created two different technical elective courses that also cover the topic in more detail. The first one is a broad course on sustainable engineering, and the second is a more specialized course on corrosion and sustainable metallurgy:

ME 4305 Sustainable Engineering

ME 4388 Corrosion and Sustainable Metallurgy

We have deliberately created a program where all of our engineering students are exposed to sustainable engineering from a Christian perspective in multiple required classes. Students who wish to pursue this further are provided with multiple elective courses that address sustainability.

The semester ends in the anatomy lab. The cadaver no longer looks like a person. What have we gained from this experience? The crucifixion story (Gospel of John) describing the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection shares similarities with the anatomy lab experience. Jesus’s body was prepared with herbs; cadavers are anointed with preservative. The women waited by the tomb; the families of the cadavers wait for the return of their loved one’s ashes. And just as the security of Jesus’s tomb was critical, so is the security of the cadavers in our lab.

The open tomb with Jesus’s body missing must have been a terrible shock, just as an empty anatomy lab would be a tragedy for those who safeguard the cadavers. Our cadavers are returned to the medical school from which we receive them. Jesus’s body did not decay, but was resurrected. His ascension allows the Holy Spirit to enter into us. This, in turn, allows us to live out the love of Christ to those around us.

As my students finish their time in the anatomy lab, the knowledge they have gained from cadaver dissection will aid them in future health science careers. The gift of each cadaver gives each student a greater sense of imago Dei, of God’s image in each of us. Through his death and resurrection, Christ empowers us to carry his sacrificial love to others through our lives and our actions.

This work was first published in Christianity Today in May 2018.

The talk will describe the remarkable story of PUST (Pyongyang University of Science and Technology), which in October 2019 celebrated the 10th anniversary of operation in the capital of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). PUST was founded by James Chin-Kyung Kim with the generous help of Christian supporters from South Korea and around the world.

As of this year, about 700 students progress in their studies of engineering, international finance, agriculture and life science, and medical sciences through undergraduate and graduate programs taught exclusively in English under the guidance of DPRK and foreign (volunteer) faculty.

The qualifications and options for involvement of foreign participants, along with the specific subjects for which both short- and longer-term instructors are being sought, will be described.

In recent years, evolutionary creation has become an increasingly popular model for Christians seeking to integrate faith and science. While this approach is laudable in demonstrating how biological evolution can be incorporated into a Christian worldview, it does present some theological challenges that can be difficult to approach for laypeople, students, and scientists.

One such issue revolves around the role of animal death and suffering in the evolutionary process over millions of years before the advent of humanity. Different philosophers and theologians have handled this issue in a variety of ways over the years, presenting a dizzying array of things for newcomers to the topic to consider. Here we use this subject as a model for helping students and nonspecialists to approach complex questions at the intersection of faith and science.

We discuss the framing of the problem in a way that delineates what exactly is at stake and what some of the possible avenues forward might be. We then discuss the various approaches specifically, highlighting the benefits and difficulties presented by each. We conclude by discussing the value of considering each of these approaches, even when some of them would stretch beyond the bounds of one’s tradition, and calling everyone to maintain a posture of “faith seeking understanding” as we wrestle with difficult questions together. By working through difficult issues in this manner, we can demonstrate the importance of nuance, humility, and charity as we engage with one another over potentially divisive issues.

According to the Barna 2018 Gen Z Report, approximately one-in-three Gen Z (29%) and Millennials (30%) have “a hard time believing a good God would allow so much evil or suffering in the world.” The processes of Neo-Darwinian evolution have been used to argue against the existence of the loving God portrayed in the Judeo-Christian Bible. For many, the problem of predation seems particularly hard to justify and has provided some of the strongest support for the atheistic worldview. However, this presentation will argue that improved literacy in understanding the differences in neurocognitive pain perception along the evolutionary spectrum can remove such obstacles to faith.

The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that sensory experiences without accompanying emotional distress cannot be categorized as pain. Yet, the distressing emotional response to injury associated with suffering is perceived in the anterior cingulate cortex found only in more highly evolved creatures. The National Academy of Sciences found conclusive evidence for the conscious experience of pain was strong only for mammals and birds. Furthermore, endogenous opioid release associated with fear, predator attack, and life-threatening injury/illness provides natural stress-induced analgesia which blocks the perception of pain. Contra the assertions of atheists, endogenous pain relief combined with predator preference for weak and sickly animals work to minimize the experience of suffering in the natural order and reveal the hidden mercy of God in creation.

The emergence of modern science and the sway of the enlightenment significantly influenced how Christians approach the physical world. Enlightenment thinkers valued knowledge gained through human reason and deemphasized revelation in scripture. During this time, Christian engagement with the physical world transitioned from primarily experiencing God through creation to seeking evidence for God from creation through concrete evidence, leading to significant contributions for Christian apologetics. However, an unintended side effect is the struggle of some modern Christians to find God in creation because of its inherent hermeneutical ambiguity.

I propose a biblically and scientifically sound renewal of natural theology to help address the tension between science and Christianity and connect to God through God’s creation.

The world-over conflict and strained interpersonal relationships contribute to pain and suffering, some of which can be relieved by forgiveness and reconciliation. Noted South African anti-apartheid reformer Nelson Mandela said, “Not to forgive is like drinking a glass of poison and waiting for your enemy to die.” Every day most people have opportunities to choose to forgive, or not. The experience of forgiving others can contribute to improved health in the forgiving individual, as well as in the one being forgiven.

In the field of psychology, forgiveness is broadly understood as a process of decreasing interrelated negative resentment-based emotions, motivations, and cognition. Personality types with regard to the study of forgiveness can be divided into two types: (1) “Trait forgiveness” refers to a person with a forgiving personality, and (2) “State forgiveness” refers to being able to take the action to forgive people in the actual situation. State forgiveness accounts for greater increase in health than trait forgiveness, as measured by symptoms, number of medications taken, sleep, fatigue, and general somatic complaints. Forgiveness in a particular salient context is more significant in impacting health than general self-perceptions of forgiveness. In the field of theology, forgiveness is considered from both a transcendent and an interpersonal perspective.

This presentation will explain the physiological consequences of unresolved interpersonal conflict and describe the holistic nature of disease symptomatology. The ways in which psychology and theology can contribute to human flourishing through the process of reconciliation and forgiveness will be described.

Fasting has been an integral part of Judaism for thousands of years. It was such a common practice that Jesus didn't need to command his followers to fast, he assumed they would. In Matthew 6:16, he simply says to his followers, “whenever you fast ...” Fasting was practiced in the early church and remains a very important practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

In recent years, science has discovered fasting health benefits for multiple conditions, giving scientific credence to this ancient religious practice. Fasting increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) that is responsible for the growth of new brain cells. Considering the epidemic of type 2 diabetes, the reduction of blood sugar levels that is seen with fasting is of particular interest. Fasting produces ketone bodies that are used by the brain for energy and are important in promoting healthy gut function. During fasting, low ATP levels cause the body to begin a process called autophagy, in which cells begin to digest waste products and convert them into usable energy. Although there are many types of fasting, intermittent, periodic, time restricted, and Daniel, they all appear to provide similar benefits.

For the believer, fasting subdues carnal desires and can contribute to taking care of the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19). For the skeptic who thinks that science has made Christianity irrelevant, the scientific support for fasting may give them pause to reconsider the Christian faith.

Low-income people, refugees, and those in disasters have energy requirements and supply strategies quite different from those in most American households. There are challenges in terms of appliance costs, fuel costs, labor, airborne emissions, and safety hazards.

At the ASA annual meeting 15 years ago, I described the contrasting strategies in meeting energy needs, and I focused on one potential low-cost solution: solar cooking. In this talk, I will review the progress made in a pilot solar-cooking project and the work done in the development of an international standard for cookstoves, which will help countries to select appropriate low-cost products. Ongoing challenges in implementing solar cooking projects will be described and new directions will be suggested.

New technologies emerging over the last fifty years have led to countless commercial applications of science at ever-decreasing costs (genetic testing, AI, communications, etc.), transforming many aspects of daily life at an alarming rate. However, until the last decade, access to orbit was an exception to the rule. The available options for launching people or equipment into space seemed stalled, remaining prohibitively expensive for most commercial enterprises.

In recent years, dramatic changes have occurred that are opening up a variety of low-cost opportunities for the rapid commercialization of space on an unprecedented scale, as new private companies (SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc.) are proving innovative technologies for access to orbit and beyond. With these new opportunities, come important questions and concerns regarding their impact on society at large.

After presenting some of the current projects underway that utilize emerging launch systems, I will argue for what will likely be available to any private company within the next decade. I will also examine some of the societal challenges to health, safety, security, and scientific research that must be balanced against commercial interests in the coming years.

Clean energy using renewable technologies has gained a strong foothold globally. As Christians, we must be committed to support the development of sustainable energy, which includes electricity being generated by wind power. Incidentally, in a dozen places in scripture, wind is used as a metaphor for the Spirit world (e.g., Gen. 1:2 and John 3:15).

In 2020, wind turbines have been generating 600 gigawatts of power globally, with China accounting for 34% of installed capacity (800MW in the US). This is equivalent to power generation by 600, 1000MW coal or nuclear power plants. The big issue today is whether to use wind power generation on shore or off shore. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. On shore uses turbines located on land where there is low conservation or habitat value. Off shore uses turbines located in open water, usually in the ocean, where higher winds are available.

The talk will start with a brief introduction of how wind farms work. It will then cover the advantages and disadvantages of each system, especially when one realizes that offshore wind is likely to be the next big US renewable sector, with an overall potential of 3000MW. The discussion will include issues that all wind turbines face, such as its intermittency, costs relative to conventional systems, stand alone or grid connected, its environmental impacts, and aesthetic concerns (not in my backyard syndrome!).

This presentation will provide an overview of the definition of Analytic Theology and its core principles with application to the text of Genesis 1 and 2. Analytical Theology is characterized by logical rigor, clarity, and parsimony of expression, coupled with attention to a certain cluster of theological problems. The five prescriptions of Analytic Theology are reviewed by Crisp and Rae in Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology (Oxford University Press, 2009). What does this mean for those who accept the authority of the Bible as Christian revelation?

McCall, in An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology (IVP Academic, 2015), offers additional logical statements to provide a language for the analysis of theological statements to evaluate their “Biblical Authority.” Based on these principles, assumptions are established for the interpretation of scripture, taken as the plenary inspired Word of God: (a) any scripture must be interpreted in the context of all scripture, (b) conflicts in scripture are not acceptable, (c) use of repeated words and texts in scripture can provide insight into the meaning of scripture by comparing passages and noting what is similar and different, and (d) scripture must be logically interpreted understanding who is speaking to whom, and in what dispensation (The Garden, Law, Grace, etc.).

These principles and assumptions are then applied to the text of Genesis as logical statements. For example, are the differences in the order of creation between chapters 1 and 2 logically acceptable? How do the genealogies of Genesis impact our interpretation of the creation accounts? How does the New Testament impact our interpretation of the creation accounts? The use of this logical approach reveals a novel interpretation that addresses perceived conflicts with science regarding the creation narratives.

Since its inception, animal research has been controversial with strong biblically based ethical arguments to justify both the vivisectionist and the antivivisectionist positions. Vivisectionists evoked primarily Thomistic thought to support their position, while antivivisectionists supported their arguments by Franciscan teachings. Over time these convergent positions coalesced within an animal welfare framework as reflected in the late-twentieth-century position statements promulgated by many mainstream Christian churches on the use of animals in research.

Singer’s publication of Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals (Avon Books, 1977), however, advanced the concept of animal rights prompting philosophers such as Andrew Linzey and David Clough to develop a Christian justification for the concept of animal rights.

This presentation will provide an overview of the vivisection controversy and the relevant Thomistic and Franciscan arguments supporting each side culminating with their eventual synthesis into a Christian position on animal welfare. It will also provide a brief introduction to the approaches taken by Linzey in Animal Theology (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1995) and Clough in On Animals Volume One: Systematic Theology and Volume Two: Theological Ethics (Bloomsbury, 2012 and 2019) as they have sought to develop and justify a Christian ethic for animal rights.

This research was supported by Concordia University Wisconsin.

The world is headed for an average temperature rise of over 3°C. Attaining a 2°C target requires significant short-term reductions in CO₂ emissions. How those emissions are distributed has implications for the attainment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Three strategies for allocating reductions are compared: percentage of a baseline, capping CO₂ emissions per capita, and reductions starting with the high emitters first. Estimates in the resulting inequalities in emissions will be presented. Under a baseline scenario, the inequalities increase. Under the other two schemes, inequality decreases and provides more time for the sustainable development goals.

It seems unlikely that high-income countries will reduce their fossil fuel emissions at the cost of a reduction in lifestyles and GDP. Yet the Human Development Index data suggest that such reductions are possible without sacrificing human development. Living in a society that seeks to satiate insatiable desires encourages greed that puts our desires above other people’s needs. Such greed is contrary to the teaching of Jesus. Unless the church is willing to preach a rejection of such greed as part of the solution of climate change, it risks remaining part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Too often, Christians in science feel lonely in both the lab and the church. What can local churches do to welcome and support scientists? What can scientists do to encourage the body of Christ? Come and hear about exciting ways local churches connect science and faith. We'll also have breakout groups to help you brainstorm science/faith connections for your local church.