2024 Scientists Network

Artificial Intelligence, "AI," is not a new concept, but in recent years has fueled amazing new capabilities, from sophisticated computer vision to natural language processing. Developed with enormous volumes and diversity of data and unprecedented computing power, large-scale AI systems have begun to manifest emergent---unplanned, unexpected, unexplainable---capabilities. We explore promising applications (each a sword with two-edges) and various facets of "intelligence" with an eye toward understanding the impacts of AI on culture and society.

Human identity is a topic for which many different kinds of answers are offered, from different spheres. What exactly are we? Are we merely advanced apes? Are we just machines? Do we have a soul? Some Neuroscientists and philosophers hold the view that the brain drives everything about us. All of our thoughts, decisions, memories, even religious beliefs are traceable to the chemical and electrical activity of our brains. What shall we make of this view? What about the mind and soul? This session will consider questions of human identity from the perspectives of neuroscience, philosophy and theology.

Charlie Catlett is a committed evangelical Christian who has been involved in Internet and scientific supercomputing research for 35 years. He was among the pioneers to work on the technologies and protocols for the public internet in the 1980s, the web in the 1990s, and what we call "cloud" computing in the 2000's. Today, his research spans cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. How does he combine his expertise and Christian faith, immersed in the scientific community? What can we learn for Christian engagement in science and its influence on culture and society?

Popular science writings and programmes tend to place humankind as close relatives of chimpanzees and just one of many animal species on this planet. The rejection of human uniqueness has its roots in Darwin and is a serious barrier to the gospel. This workshop will consider biological, sociological and psychological evidence for unique features of our species . It will then suggest lines of apologetic arguments for the truth of the gospel from human nature and experience.

During the last four decades a fast development of bio inspired engineering took place. The results are published under terms like Bionics, Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomimetics, Biomimicry, Bioengineering, Bioarchitecture. The talk presented will mainly focus on what a mechanical/structural/civil engineer can learn from these fields. Questions like: What can we learn from a frozen blanket applying the law of gravity? What can we learn from a tree – its seen and unseen parts? What can we learn from a tiger claw to design the optimal crane hook? How can we optimise structural elements learning from the human skeleton? Learning to “look” is one of the keys to grasp ideas from creation and its application in developing new constructions, identifying new mechanisms and concepts.

Biomimetics is a term used for copying engineering ideas from the natural world, and it has become a great source of innovative inventions. One of the most famous is the Wright brothers with their first heavier-than-air flying machine which directly copied the wings of birds. Other examples are the burdock plant which inspired the invention of Velcro, the Gecko which led to robots which can walk even upside down, the lotus leaf which has led to self-cleaning glass and the bombardier beetle which has a number of applications including a sprinkler system for targeting potential fire hazards and an engine additive injection system. How do these inspirations help us to build an argument for design in nature?

Lawrence J. Henderson, professor for chemistry at Harvard at the beginning of the 20th century, was doing research on physiological buffer-systems. Hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen and their molecules, water and carbon dioxide – building up earth’s atmosphere – work very nicely in essential tasks in physiological systems. This fact points to a teleological order. Henderson was convinced that there should be a mechanistic explanation which was – in his own words – “not at hand” and still isn’t. In this session, we will consider Henderson's claim and examine whether there are valid reasons to deny ideas of design.

Scientists collect data and try to make sense of them. Often, conflicting theories arise as worldview presuppositions enter into the interpretations. How can we compare different approaches and decide on the best explanation? We want to try to summarise and compare the different positions on how to think about scientific evidence within a Christian worldview. The audience is encouraged to ask questions!