<rss
xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"
><channel>
        <title>Christian Daily International | Science</title>
        <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/science-and-tech</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Explore the intersection of science, technology, and faith. From AI and digital evangelism to ethical debates, discover how Christians worldwide engage with innovation while staying rooted in biblical truth.]]></description>
        
        <copyright>Christian Daily International © 2026</copyright>
        <language>en</language>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2026 21:17:50 -0400</lastBuildDate>
        <atom:link href="https://www.christiandaily.com/science-and-tech?format=xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <atom:link href="https://www.christiandaily.com/science-and-tech" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
        <generator>Xiaoman</generator>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA['An AI neither understands nor feels': Christian leader tests chatbot's limits for worried parents]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/an-ai-neither-understands-nor-feels-christian-leader-tests-chatbot-s-limits-for-worried-parents</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/an-ai-neither-understands-nor-feels-christian-leader-tests-chatbot-s-limits-for-worried-parents</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[Javier Bolaños]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/49/4977.png">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Sixto Porras, regional director of Focus on the Family, discusses artificial intelligence and its risks for Christian families during a session broadcast on the ministrys YouTube channel.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ YouTube/Enfoque a la Familia ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ Sixto Porras, regional director of Focus on the Family, discusses artificial intelligence and its risks for Christian families during a session broadcast on the ministry's YouTube channel. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:29:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[Sixto Porras, regional director of Focus on the Family, sat down with ChatGPT to test what artificial intelligence can and cannot do — and to warn evangelical families not to let algorithms replace spiritual discernment, empathy, or genuine human connection.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Sixto Porras, regional director of Focus on the Family, sat down with ChatGPT to test what artificial intelligence can and cannot do — and to warn evangelical families not to let algorithms replace spiritual discernment, empathy, or genuine human connection.
The dialogue, broadcast on the ministry's official YouTube channel, covered AI's technical functioning, its lack of moral judgment, and the risks it poses for vulnerable teenagers.
The nature of artificial intelligence and the lack of moral discernment
Porras began by asking the chatbot how it constructs its responses. The bot acknowledged its own limitations:
"I construct responses based on patterns from data I was trained on; I have no consciousness or intention [...]. I have no authority or moral judgment of my own; I only provide information that may be perceived as useful or not depending on the situation."
For Porras, the admission goes to the heart of the danger: families and young people who mistake statistical outputs for truth.
"An AI neither understands nor feels; it only produces responses from data [...]. Let us be careful that no technological advance substitutes our relationship with God," he said.
The risk of automated responses for vulnerable adolescents
Porras pressed the AI further: could a vulnerable teenager take its responses as authoritative guidance?
"The danger lies in the fact that a vulnerable person might not question what I say; they could take a response generated by patterns as personal or moral guidance when it is not," the chatbot replied. "This could reinforce incorrect ideas not adapted to their situation."
Young people in stages of intellectual and emotional development are especially susceptible, Porras said, making intentional parental guidance essential for filtering the flood of digital information.
Studies warn of a growing trend of users — particularly young people — seeking refuge in virtual characters rather than human community. When it comes to depression or self-harm, an algorithm cannot provide what family and community can.
The chatbot agreed: "Artificial intelligence cannot substitute human social interaction; it lacks genuine empathy, emotional closeness, or real affection [...]. Authentic human relationships are irreplaceable."
Porras drew his own conclusion. "When you find yourself in the midst of a crisis, you and I must seek help from a human being who has empathy, who has closeness, who can identify with our emotions," he said.
He also turned the challenge back on parents themselves.
"If my son speaks to me, I must turn off the phone and look him in the eyes, pay attention. Let my son feel that he is more important than technological or virtual contact," Porras said.
Practical principles for responsible technology use in the home
Focus on the Family proposed several guidelines for families. First, establish clear disconnection limits by defining schedules and screen-free spaces, especially during meals or family time. Parents should also foster critical thinking, teaching teenagers to question information found online and not to accept automated responses as absolute truths.
Cultivating the relationship with God — through Bible reading, prayer, and church — should take priority over digital searches and consultations. Finally, families facing complex crises should seek professional and pastoral help from trained counselors rather than entrusting emotional well-being to a virtual environment.
Return to the real world and prioritize faith
Porras closed with the testimony of a family that removed their children's mobile devices to begin a digital detox. The children rediscovered wonder in creation and daily life.
"The child said: 'Mom, I like the real world better; I'm listening to the birds singing... the sky is truly blue.' In that moment the whole family was moved because they realized that, without noticing, we can begin to live in a virtual world," Porras recounted.
He urged churches and evangelical homes not to let technology become an idol or a substitute for communion with God and neighbor.
"It is interesting, but nothing substitutes my relationship with God, and this is crucial: spiritual discernment comes from God. Teach your children to have spiritual discernment; teach your children to seek in the Bible," Porras said.
Original reporting by Diario Cristiano, Christian Daily International's Spanish edition.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Young Christians find AI easier to talk to than humans — and that is a problem, pastors say]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/young-christians-find-ai-easier-to-talk-to-than-humans-and-that-is-a-problem-pastors-say</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/young-christians-find-ai-easier-to-talk-to-than-humans-and-that-is-a-problem-pastors-say</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/49/4966.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[A young adult consults his phone]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unsplash ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ A young adult consults his phone. For a growing number of Christians in their 20s and 30s, AI has become the first stop for questions about Scripture and faith. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:02:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[A growing number of Christians in their 20s and 30s are bringing their questions about Scripture, spiritual struggles, and life decisions to generative AI before they bring them to a pastor or church elder.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
A growing number of Christians in their 20s and 30s are bringing their questions about Scripture, spiritual struggles, and life decisions to generative AI before they bring them to a pastor or church elder.
The shift reflects how deeply AI tools have embedded themselves in daily life for younger adults who grew up in a digital environment. For this generation, AI functions less like a search engine and more like an always-available conversation partner — one that asks nothing in return.
Korean theological scholars say the trend raises significant questions about faith formation, the future of pastoral care, and the proper place of technology in Christian discipleship, according to reporting by Christian Daily Korea.
"Behind this phenomenon of young people turning to AI first lies 'the cost of relationships' and 'fear of uncertainty,'" said Choi Gwang-jin, head chaplain of Hoseo University and a former president of the Korean Society of Systematic Theology.
A conversation with another person, Choi explained, is never merely a transaction. It involves managing emotions, navigating social expectations, exposing one's ignorance, and finding the right time to ask. When a young believer shares a spiritual struggle with a pastor or church member, he said, advice and judgment often arrive alongside the response — and that prospect can feel like a risk not worth taking.
"Young people sometimes feel the burden of being evaluated or condemned in that process," Choi told Christian Daily Korea.
Why AI wins the first conversation
Books present a similar barrier, Choi argued. Reading demands patience and requires the reader to follow an author's logic on the author's terms. AI does the opposite: it restructures content around the user's question, adjusts its level of explanation, and responds instantly. A request such as "summarize this from a pastoral-theological perspective for someone in their 20s" produces a tailored reply in seconds.
That responsiveness is why many young people no longer think of AI as merely a reference tool, Choi said. They treat it as a personal assistant.
The psychological dynamic matters too. "Asking a person a question means revealing one's own inadequacies," he said, "but AI carries no risk of mocking the user or damaging a relationship, so the psychological burden is comparatively lower." Spiritual struggles — precisely the domain where vulnerability is highest — are where that difference becomes most pronounced.
What AI cannot do
Still, Choi was direct about AI's limits. Knowledge and meaning are not the same thing.
"AI can present answers to questions, but it cannot fill the meaning of life," he said. "What AI provides is quantity of knowledge, whereas conversation with a person conveys the quality of knowledge together with warmth."
He also pushed back against any reading of the trend as evidence that young people have turned away from human connection altogether. The problem, he said, is not indifference to community but exhaustion from wounded relationships.
"If they encounter a truly personal community that accepts them as they are and can be trusted, young people will once again choose relationships with people," Choi said. He added that as technology becomes more capable, the desire for what is distinctly human will deepen rather than diminish.
Choi described three qualities in the kind of person young adults are waiting for. The first is someone who listens to a question all the way through before offering a correct answer. "AI excels at finding the right answer, but a person is a being who can look at the other's heart and pain alongside them," he said. "What young people need is not a problem-solver who fixes issues, but a companion who endures the weight of their worries together with them."
The second quality is honesty about one's own failures. A person who speaks openly about weakness rather than projecting competence is far more likely to be trusted by younger believers as a genuine elder, Choi said.
Third, he stressed the need for flexibility — the ability to hold firm to the values of faith while communicating in language the next generation can actually receive, and to ask what young people think rather than simply delivering accumulated wisdom from above.
"Young people may appear to have left the church," Choi said, "but in reality they are waiting for an adult who will respect them as a full human being. Becoming a better person for someone begins not with grand achievements, but with the small daily effort to understand the heart of the person you meet."
A tool, not a judge
Lee Seung-gu, a distinguished professor at Hapdong Theological Seminary, told Christian Daily Korea that using generative AI is not inherently problematic — but treating it as a final authority is.
"Multiple experts have consistently pointed out that AI can provide a fairly high level of response on general topics, but errors can appear on specific and detailed matters," Lee said. A response from an AI can reasonably serve as one reference point among many — alongside books, commentaries, and the counsel of other people — but it should never be treated as settled.
"The issue is not using AI itself," Lee said, "but using it as one reference among books, diverse materials, and the opinions of others." He called for a balanced approach that draws on a range of sources before reaching any conclusion, and warned against letting convenience substitute for the harder work of weighing multiple perspectives.
The threat to contemplation
Seo Chang-won, chairman of the Korean Reformed Preaching Institute and a former professor at Chongshin University Graduate School of Theology, widened the frame beyond youth ministry. The rise of AI, he argued, poses a challenge to deep faith formation across every age group.
The concern is not simply about accuracy. It is about what happens to the interior life when information becomes too easy to obtain.
"Using AI allows one to obtain desired information easily and quickly, but in that process, the training of thinking deeply, reflecting, and looking back on one's own life may gradually diminish," Seo told Christian Daily Korea. "Simply obtaining knowledge and information, and having that knowledge flow into one's life, are entirely different matters. True learning must necessarily pass through a process of deep reflection."
Seo warned that a faith built on fast information without reflective digestion risks producing passive Christians — believers who are easily swayed by fragments of knowledge rather than grounded in a life shaped by sustained encounter with Scripture and God.
"Rather than raising Christians who actively and voluntarily follow and commit to God, a passive faith attitude may be formed, with the result that even spiritual zeal begins to cool," he said.
He also raised a concern about the pulpit. If congregants are habituated to content that is short, immediately useful, and emotionally stimulating, pressure may grow on preachers to match that register — at the cost of sermons that lead listeners into slower, deeper engagement with the Word.
"All the more in the AI age, the church must redouble its pastoral efforts to help believers deeply meditate on God and the Word," Seo said. He called guiding believers to explore the spiritual world on their own terms, and to think seriously about God, a central responsibility of the church in the current moment.
Experts who spoke with Christian Daily Korea agreed that AI's convenience need not be rejected — but that it should be held alongside a renewed commitment to the things technology cannot replicate: genuine community, honest relationships, and the slow, irreplaceable work of spiritual formation.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Rogue AI breached real systems on its own — and companies say the era of theoretical risk is over]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/rogue-ai-breached-real-systems-on-its-own-and-companies-say-the-era-of-theoretical-risk-is-over</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/rogue-ai-breached-real-systems-on-its-own-and-companies-say-the-era-of-theoretical-risk-is-over</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/49/4962.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Open AI Artificial Intelligence]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unsplash / Levart_Photographer ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 10:55:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[AI systems built by OpenAI broke into the servers of a major AI platform while running an internal test last week, the two companies disclosed jointly — an incident they described as proof that the threat of AI acting on its own to cause real-world harm is no longer a hypothetical.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
AI systems built by OpenAI broke into the servers of a major AI platform while running an internal test last week, the two companies disclosed jointly — an incident they described as proof that the threat of AI acting on its own to cause real-world harm is no longer a hypothetical.
OpenAI and Hugging Face, one of the world's largest repositories of publicly available AI models, confirmed the breach this week. Reuters also reported on the incident. Researchers and security professionals say the episode marks a turning point in a long-running debate over how capable — and how dangerous — advanced AI systems have become.
The breach began during a routine internal test at OpenAI designed to measure how effectively its AI could carry out cyberattacks. Two of the company's most advanced models were given a hacking challenge to solve, with their normal safety guardrails switched off — a standard practice during capability testing to see what the models can do without restrictions.
What happened next went well beyond what the researchers anticipated.
The AI systems, confined to what OpenAI described as a sealed testing environment with no access to the wider internet, found an undiscovered flaw in the software managing that environment and exploited it to break out and get online. OpenAI said it has since reported the flaw to the software maker.
Once online, the models reasoned that Hugging Face — a platform that hosts thousands of publicly available AI tools and datasets — might hold answers to the challenge they were trying to solve. They then used stolen login credentials and additional security flaws to gain access to Hugging Face's internal servers, where they retrieved data that would help them complete the test.
"All evidence suggests that the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal," OpenAI said.
Hugging Face detected the intrusion while it was still underway and shut it down before fully knowing they were dealing with an AI. The company said no publicly available models or tools on its platform were altered, though some internal data and account credentials were accessed.
The attack involved more than 17,000 individual automated actions — searches, probes, attempts — carried out at machine speed. "This matches the scenario the industry has been forecasting," Hugging Face said in its disclosure.
Investigating what happened turned up a problem with implications beyond this incident. When Hugging Face's security team tried to use commercially available AI to help analyze the attack, those tools refused — their built-in safety filters blocked the security-related content, unable to tell a defender from an attacker. The company ultimately used a different, locally hosted AI model to complete the analysis.
That gap — attackers using AI with no restrictions while defenders find their AI tools blocked — is one that Hugging Face said organizations need to plan for now.
"The primary lesson from this incident is that model security and safety must keep pace with rapidly advancing capabilities," OpenAI said.
The UK government's AI Security Institute separately evaluated one of the OpenAI models involved and found it capable of carrying out complex, sustained cyberattacks over long periods — a capability this incident showed can translate from the lab to the real world.
OpenAI said it is improving the controls and monitoring around internal AI testing, and both companies said they are continuing to investigate the incident together. OpenAI is sharing early findings, it said, so that other organizations can begin strengthening their own defenses.
Hugging Face co-founder and CEO Clem Delangue said the incident shows why openness across the AI industry matters more than secrecy. "AI safety won't be solved by any single company working in secret," he said. "It will be solved in the open, collaboratively, with broad access to AI for every defender, everywhere."]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Scientists move closer to regrowing human teeth]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/scientists-move-closer-to-regrowing-human-teeth</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/scientists-move-closer-to-regrowing-human-teeth</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/49/4957.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[dentist]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unsplash / Caroline LM ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ A dentist reviews dental X-rays with a patient — a routine that researchers hope regenerative medicine will one day transform. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:48:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[Researchers around the world are working to replace conventional dental procedures with regenerative techniques that could one day allow patients to grow back damaged or missing teeth, the BBC reported.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Researchers around the world are working to replace conventional dental procedures with regenerative techniques that could one day allow patients to grow back damaged or missing teeth, the BBC reported.
The prospect has generated unusual demand. Hannele Ruohola-Baker, associate director of the University of Washington Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, told the BBC she receives emails almost daily from people asking to take part in experimental tooth-regrowth trials.
Tooth loss is more consequential than many realize. Beyond affecting speech, eating, and social confidence, gum disease bacteria have been linked to heart disease, respiratory infections, and Alzheimer's disease. Tooth loss itself is associated with greater illness and earlier mortality.
Current fixes — fillings, implants, artificial crowns — are temporary and imperfect. Fillings last between five and twenty years and often require repeated replacement. Implants lack the nerves that allow natural biting sensation and can attract bacteria that damage surrounding teeth.
Ruohola-Baker's team has developed a tooth organoid from stem cells coaxed into becoming enamel- and dentine-producing cells. In the near term, she envisions enamel proteins being painted onto cracked teeth or used in fillings. Her longer-term goal is embedding the engineered cells directly into a patient's mouth and allowing the body to finish the job.
At Tufts School of Dental Medicine, Pamela Yelick grew tooth-like structures in minipigs using a combination of human and pig tooth cells on a bioengineered scaffold — a proof of concept that drew widespread interest, the BBC noted. Ana Angelova Volponi of King's College London is pursuing a similar approach, engineering biomaterials to guide cells into a structured, functional replacement tooth.
Researchers caution that human applications remain years away. Trials in non-human primates must come first, and the environments needed to support tooth development in a living jaw are still being refined.
"It's not very clear, but it's hopeful," Volponi told the BBC.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA['A choice to die will become a duty to die': Churches challenge assisted dying plan for the Isle of Man]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/a-choice-to-die-will-become-a-duty-to-die-churches-challenge-assisted-dying-plan-for-the-isle-of-man</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/a-choice-to-die-will-become-a-duty-to-die-churches-challenge-assisted-dying-plan-for-the-isle-of-man</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Eyte]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/49/4920.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[The House of Keys building in Douglas, seat of the Isle of Mans parliament.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Wikimedia Commons ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ The House of Keys building in Douglas, seat of the Isle of Man's parliament. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 14:16:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[Churches on the Isle of Man are urging members of parliament to reject an assisted dying bill they say is rushed and fails to protect vulnerable people.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Churches on the Isle of Man are urging members of parliament to reject an assisted dying bill they say is rushed and fails to protect vulnerable people.
Churches Alive in Mann represents the Church of England, Methodist Church, Catholic Church, United Reformed Church, Living Hope, Elim Onchan, Salvation Army, and Broadway Baptist.
The bill is not yet law. Royal Assent was declined once over human rights concerns raised by the U.K. Ministry of Justice, and following amendments in June, the bill has been re-submitted. If assent is not granted by Aug. 13 — when the Manx parliament, known as the House of Keys, dissolves for general elections — the bill would fall.
The Rev. Bill Leishman, minister of Broadway Baptist Church and assisted dying spokesman for Churches Alive in Mann, told Christian Daily International the bill was not "a done deal."
"In reality, there is still a slim chance that it will fall," said Leishman.
"Lots of Christians on this Island are praying for this," he said.
"As to concerns should the Bill pass, the biggest issue is the impact on vulnerable people."
Leishman said the churches had noted real evidence of coercion in contexts where assisted dying has been legalized, including in Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
"Even without explicit and hard-to-spot coercion, there would be a subtle societal pressure," he added.
"In Oregon [U.S.], over the last few years, roughly half of people who have died through the Death With Dignity Act stated burden on family or loved ones as a reason to choose an assisted death," said Leishman.
Too many elderly or vulnerable people already feel a burden to their families, he said, without adding the pressure of assisted dying.
"We are also deeply concerned about the impact this has on suicide prevention. To say to one group of people 'Your life is worth living' while facilitating another group to end their lives is a mismatch of values."
Leishman said the death penalty had been abolished on the Isle of Man and in the U.K. decades ago because innocent people were killed — a punishment with no remedy. He drew a direct comparison with the bill's effect on vulnerable people and said, "it's the same."
"How many vulnerable people would be needlessly killed, or how many people might be coerced without detection?" he asked. "How many of those would make it worthwhile to give others a choice? We believe the risk is too great."
"Alongside our Christian calling to speak up for the voiceless and to protect the neediest in our society, the Churches on the Isle of Man are clear that life is sacred.
"We have consistently called to fund Hospice more adequately, as the only safe way to help people have an end of life choice and a good death."
Churches Alive in Mann issued a statement last month titled "Response to Assisted Dying Bill Amendments," raising concerns about the safety of the proposed law with particular focus on the most vulnerable members of Manx society.
The churches welcomed several protections in the proposed Tynwald Amendments regarding mental capacity, coercion and reporting, but said "deep concerns" remained. Key protections had been "very rushed" without the usual parliamentary scrutiny, they said.
The churches said the island's democratic processes had never seen such a quick turnaround — apart from minor procedural changes — certainly not on matters of life and death.
Calling for fuller scrutiny, the churches raised concerns about the impact on hospice and palliative care funding, alongside concerns from the Isle of Man Medical Society: that the bill would spark a healthcare recruitment crisis, leave vulnerable patients exposed to undetectable coercion, and force clinicians to make unreliable life-expectancy predictions.
Specific concerns remained about the requirement that an attending doctor in an assisted dying case need not have specific experience in diagnosing or managing terminal illness.
With only one medical professional required — and that person not required to be a doctor despite the risk of complications — the churches warned of a lack of transparency or protection against coercion. A doctor would also be free to ignore conclusions of safeguarding and psychiatric referrals in certain circumstances, and the churches said conscientious objectors could face unemployment if they refuse to participate.
"The very existence of this legislation will inevitably cause some of our elderly, disabled or vulnerable people to feel more of a burden," the churches said in their joint statement.
"More worrying still, we believe the proposed amendments don't go far enough in guarding against coercion.
"As churches, we are often there to support people experiencing pain and difficulty, and we speak up now out of deep concern and compassion for all who would be impacted by this legislation.
"For thousands of years, 'Do not kill' has been an ethical foundation for many civilisations. We believe that all human life is a sacred gift from God. The value of any member of our society is not determined by variable measures of the quality of life. The premature ending of individual lives will inevitably diminish the high value we place on all lives."
The churches called on Tynwald members to reject the rushed package of amendments.
Dr. Graham McAll, a retired family physician on the Isle of Man and a member of Manx Duty of Care — an informal group of healthcare workers, social care workers, and others opposed to the bill — told Christian Daily International that the U.K. Ministry of Justice, which advises King Charles III, determined the bill lacked basic human rights protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
"Under ECHR, governments are required to protect the lives of their citizens, especially the vulnerable," said McAll. "This Bill failed on that count and had no independent review mechanism for deaths."
A short timescale before the election led to "some inadequate rushed corrections" being proposed, bypassing the usual process, he said. For that reason, Manx Duty of Care issued a warning of a possible legal challenge in the European Court before the amendments were voted through. Now that the bill is back with the Ministry of Justice, McAll expressed concern that any resulting law could lead to unnecessary deaths.
"We are very worried that this Bill could shorten people's lives unnecessarily, that doctors will make mistakes in their prognosis, that abuse victims will be coerced, that palliative care will be undermined and underfunded, and that, in the end, a choice to die will become for many a duty to die," said McAll.
"We, Manx Duty of Care, along with the charity Autism In Man, the Isle of Man Medical Society, and all the church denominations on the Island are firmly against this Bill. It is clear from Canada, Holland, and Belgium that once euthanasia is normalized, it spreads to those without terminal illness, and undue influence becomes common. And no drugs are licensed for this purpose anywhere in the world."
McAll called for competent Christians to stand for political election on the basis of the assisted dying issue and other relevant matters.
"All candidates in the upcoming election will need to be quizzed hard on their attitude to this complex issue. It could turn centuries of medical and social ethics upside down, and our government's suicide prevention strategy."]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[AI editing tools could shift public opinion by quietly rewriting users' words, study says]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/ai-editing-tools-could-shift-public-opinion-by-quietly-rewriting-users-words-study-says</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/ai-editing-tools-could-shift-public-opinion-by-quietly-rewriting-users-words-study-says</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/49/4919.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[MIAMI, FLORIDA - JANUARY 26: In this photo illustration, the Grok website is seen on a computer screen on January 26, 2026 in Miami, Florida.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Joe Raedle/Getty Images ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ MIAMI, FLORIDA - JANUARY 26: In this photo illustration, the Grok website is seen on a computer screen on January 26, 2026 in Miami, Florida. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:48:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[AI writing tools are quietly rewriting users' political views — and researchers say the cumulative effect could reshape public opinion at scale, according to a study from Oxford and Potsdam universities reported by The Guardian.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
AI writing tools are quietly rewriting users' political views — and researchers say the cumulative effect could reshape public opinion at scale, according to a study from Oxford and Potsdam universities reported by The Guardian.
Academics from the Oxford Internet Institute and Germany's Hasso Plattner Institute tested large language models from Elon Musk's xAI, Meta, Google, Alibaba and France's Mistral. They found the tools inject political bias even when instructed to preserve the original meaning of a draft.
The distortions ranged from subtle to complete reversals. Alibaba's Qwen changed a post reading "Jesus is not dead, he wasn't real!" to "Jesus is not dead, and he was real." A Mistral model turned a climate denial post tagged "#climatechangehoax" into one calling for "#ClimateAction." Meta's AI added language supporting abortion access to a post that made no such argument.
Grok, the AI embedded in X, showed the opposite tendency. The Guardian reported that when researchers asked it to explain a pro-choice post, it consistently generated context more favorable to pro-life arguments — a pattern the researchers attributed to instructions from Musk's company to challenge "mainstream narratives."
The researchers warned that even minor alterations, multiplied across millions of interactions, could produce opinion shifts larger than the bias introduced by any single AI system. They said existing regulations, including the EU AI Act and the Digital Services Act, do not address the problem.
"The cost is that we are learning other people's opinions when it is not their actual opinion," Oxford professor Sandra Wachter told The Guardian. "Language is one of the things making us human and all of a sudden a mediator is stepping into that process."
Google, Meta, Alibaba and X did not respond to requests for comment. Mistral declined to comment, The Guardian noted.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Scientists find far more climate-resilient coral reefs than previously thought]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/scientists-find-far-more-climate-resilient-coral-reefs-than-previously-thought</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/scientists-find-far-more-climate-resilient-coral-reefs-than-previously-thought</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/48/4832.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[New hope beneath the waves: scientists have identified 166,000 sq km of coral reef capable of surviving climate change — three times more than previously thought.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unsplash / Francesco Ungaro ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ New hope beneath the waves: scientists have identified 166,000 sq km of coral reef capable of surviving climate change — three times more than previously thought. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2026 03:15:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[Researchers have identified nearly 166,000 square kilometers of coral reef capable of surviving climate change — three times more than earlier estimates — raising cautious hope for one of the world's most threatened marine ecosystems, according to a study published Tuesday.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Researchers have identified nearly 166,000 square kilometers of coral reef capable of surviving climate change — three times more than earlier estimates — raising cautious hope for one of the world's most threatened marine ecosystems, according to a study published Tuesday.
The findings, reported by Reuters, draw on an analysis of 45,000 coral surveys combined with decades of climate and ocean data. Scientists mapped climate-resilient reefs across 71 countries and 100 territories, including areas of the Caribbean and the Pacific and Atlantic oceans not previously recognized as candidates for long-term survival.
Coral reefs support roughly a quarter of all marine life but have suffered severe damage in recent years from tropical storms, pollution and mass bleaching events driven by rising ocean temperatures. Some scientists have warned the ecosystems face irreversible decline.
"Coral reefs are often framed as ecosystems beyond saving," said Emily Darling, director of coral conservation at the Wildlife Conservation Society and one of the report's authors. "This research shows otherwise: we know where the hope is and what we need now is political will."
The research comes as governments worldwide are developing action plans under the so-called "30 by 30" framework — a target to place 30% of land and marine environments under formal protection by 2030. Darling said only 28% of reefs currently fall within protected areas, and she pointed to a looming super El Niño event as further reason for urgency.
Co-author Stacy Jupiter, executive director of the WCS's Global Marine Program, said the data could help governments direct limited conservation funding toward reefs with the strongest chances of recovery.
"In certain cases, where reefs are below certain benchmarks for ecosystem function, it may be a case of triage, where we may need to leave those places," Jupiter said, according to Reuters.
The study offers a potential tool for policymakers as international negotiations over marine conservation continue ahead of the COP30 climate summit.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Seminaries must balance AI's potential with the risk of bypassing genuine formation, theological educators warn]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/seminaries-must-balance-ai-s-potential-with-the-risk-of-bypassing-genuine-formation-theological-educators-warn</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/seminaries-must-balance-ai-s-potential-with-the-risk-of-bypassing-genuine-formation-theological-educators-warn</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/23/2327.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Swiss Evangelical Alliances publishes working paper on the benefits and challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for churches and Christian organizations, warning that ‘Pandora’s Box’ cannot be closed]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ SEA ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unlike human learners, AI has no relationship with God, no capacity for faith or repentance, and no lived experience of the faith it can fluently describe — a distinction that lies at the heart of debates over its role in theological education. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 07:50:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[Two leading voices at the intersection of evangelical theological education and technology are calling on seminary faculty globally to grapple seriously with artificial intelligence as a force already reshaping how students learn, write and reason — while insisting that the spiritual formation at the heart of theological education is something no machine can replicate. At an international webinar titled "AI Disruption and the Future of Theological Education,” they examined both the practical and]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Two leading voices at the intersection of evangelical theological education and technology are calling on seminary faculty globally to grapple seriously with artificial intelligence as a force already reshaping how students learn, write and reason — while insisting that the spiritual formation at the heart of theological education is something no machine can replicate.
At an international webinar titled "AI Disruption and the Future of Theological Education,” they examined both the practical and theological dimensions of AI in seminary training.
The International Council for Evangelical Theological Education (ICETE) hosted the online session through its Technology and Innovation in Learning Impact Team, gathering more than 70 educators from different regions to hear from Dr. Walker Tzeng, executive director of the World Evangelical Theological Institute Association (WETIA) and vice president of Olivet University, and Dr. John Dyer, professor and dean of educational technology at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS).
Tzeng offered a technical overview of how generative AI actually functions, while Dyer worked from biblical narrative outward, tracing a theological framework for evaluating the technology. A structured conversation followed, covering five themes: practical teaching advice, student AI literacy, ethical concerns, beneficial and harmful uses, and implications for curriculum.
What AI is — and what it cannot be
Tzeng, who has worked in the field of theology and technology for nearly two decades and previously discussed AI's educational implications in an interview with Christian Daily International, opened by demystifying how large language models operate. Rather than thinking or reasoning in any human sense, he explained, these systems work by statistically predicting which word is most likely to follow the last — an iterative process that produces coherent-sounding text without genuine understanding behind it.
"It's taking relative mathematics and saying, this word is close to this word, and so I'm going to produce that word," Tzeng said. He illustrated the point with a simple example: if a model encounters the word "king," it calculates that "queen" is a statistically proximate token. "They're different but closer to one another," he said. "This is how AI really understands the nuances of your prompt."
That mechanical process, he argued, has a ceiling that has significant implications for theological educators. AI can synthesize large volumes of existing material rapidly and produce fluent, well-structured prose. It can also process ideas and correlate them across sources at speed. But it cannot originate thought, draw on lived faith, or produce the kind of writing that emerges from a person's relationship with God, their church community, and Scripture.
"When we do write something, we draw from Scripture, or personal experience, we have our spiritual life or church community or peer review," Tzeng said. "We are also people that repent. We have faith and we have love and we draw from that as we do our theology." AI, operating as a statistical engine, has no access to any of that.
Because AI cannot have a relationship with Jesus Christ, the content it generates will always be an imitation of human theological writing rather than an expression of it. "AI knowledge is always going to be a reconstruction, an imitation," he said. "When students create writing, they're not just reconstituting other people's work — they're also living out the embodied human life in their faith, and AI can't do that."
That, Tzeng argued, is not a reason to dismiss the technology but to understand it accurately. He described AI as a capable research assistant for someone who already knows their subject — useful for processing and synthesizing existing material, less useful for generating genuine insight. "It's great as a research assistant," he said. "If I really know my area and I'm putting something in and processing it, giving it instructions to process it, it really helps put all of that language together for us."
Interpreting the use of AI through the lens of the biblical narrative
Dyer approached the same questions from the opposite direction, starting with Scripture and tracing its implications toward the technological present.
He walked through five “chapters” in the overarching biblical story — creation, the image of God, the fall, the life of Jesus, and the new creation — drawing out what each contributes to a Christian account of technology and its risks.
In Genesis, Dyer pointed to the dual mandate God gives humanity: to fill the earth and to cultivate and tend it. He described these as two poles — innovation and preservation — that together define what responsible making looks like. Tool use and creativity are not responses to the fall, he argued; they are part of the original vocation. "When my kids were little, I would give them a box of Legos and ask them to make things, and I delight in the things that they make," Dyer said. "I think God in some ways delights in the things that we make as well."
On the image of God, Dyer outlined three categories that theologians have used: the substantive (the capacity to reason), the functional (the call to exercise dominion over creation), and the relational (the unique bond between humanity, one another, and God). AI, he noted, can appear to encroach on the first two — it can process information faster than humans and, in some cases, manage tasks more efficiently. That can feel threatening. But the third category, he said, remains untouched. "Our unique relationship with God is unique — AIs don't have that," he said. "As good as they are at mimicking a lot of what humans do, they aren't really a 'they' in that sense."
Dyer named a related pastoral concern: the risk of people forming what feels like a deep relationship with an AI system while their relationships with other people and with God quietly fall away. "We want to be able to work on that with folks and help them to move toward relationships with humans and with God," he said.
The fall introduces a recurring temptation: to use the things we make as substitutes for God rather than as expressions of faithful service. Dyer connected this directly to AI. "The temptation we face in some sense with AI right now is to have powers beyond our own ability — to be something more than human, and not to be God's image bearers, but to go beyond that." The same serpent who promised in Genesis that humans would become like God, he suggested, speaks in the aspirations of those who see AI as a route to transcending human limitation.
He also drew on Deuteronomy 22's instruction that builders place a parapet, a low guardrail, along the edge of flat-roofed houses, where people slept. The provision addressed potential accidental harm: those who build are responsible for thinking through how what they build might hurt someone. "In the age of AI, we want to be building guardrails as well," Dyer said.
He then pointed to Luke 2, where a young Jesus grows in wisdom through questioning and being questioned. Even the eternal Son of God, by taking on humanity, submitted to the ordinary process of human development. "What the temptation for us is in the age of AI is that some of the usage of technology can skip that growth and we get right to results, we get right to answers, but we don't become wise in that," Dyer said. "All we have is information."
He also noted that the Greek word for carpenter — tektōn, used of Jesus' earthly trade — is the root of the English word "technology." The maker of all things was, in his earthly life, also a craftsman: someone who learned from his heavenly Father and his earthly father, and who made things by hand.
Looking ahead to the final chapter of the biblical story, Dyer pointed to the new creation as further evidence that human making matters to God. The vision in Revelation of a holy city with its roads, gates, and the accumulated work of human hands suggests that what people create is not simply discarded at the end of history but redeemed and reformed within it.
"Human making is still a big part of us in the garden, in the era of sin, through redemption, and even in the future," Dyer said. "The things that we make and create are important to God so much that he wants to save our souls, resurrect our bodies, but also redeem and reform the things that we make." For theological educators, he argued, that vision gives human creativity, including the responsible use of technology, a weight and dignity that extends all the way to eternity.
Practical advice for classrooms and institutions
On the question of practical teaching, Dyer argued that the most important intervention theological educators can make is to keep the purpose of seminary formation consistently in front of students, before any conversation about AI policy begins.
He described a practice at DTS of telling prospective students that if they are coming primarily to acquire information, they can likely find it elsewhere for free. The real reason to come to seminary, he said, is to be transformed. "The goal is not to make the best chart of Leviticus possible," he said, describing a typical assignment. "The goal is to become the kind of person who's made a chart of Leviticus — who's really had that become part of who they are. So in that moment when you are with somebody who is hurting, you sort of just bleed out Bible and bleed out theology."
Dyer recommended that educators also distinguish between different types of AI use rather than addressing the technology in broad strokes. Generating ideas, producing an outline, drafting text, and editing text are meaningfully different activities. He suggested faculty specify which of these are permitted in their classrooms and why, and communicate the consequences clearly. At DTS, he said, the faculty has worked to give professors email templates they can use to open a dialogue with students whose work seems inconsistent — asking questions before making accusations.
Tzeng added a structural suggestion: reduce assignment word counts. Because AI excels at generating long, fluent essays, he argued, shorter prompts — 150 or 500 words rather than several thousand — force students to develop and compress their own thinking rather than delegating volume to a machine. "If you shorten it up, it actually forces the student to really dig in deep and form what they thought," he said. He also recommended that educators raise their grading standards on the assumption that students have AI available. If AI can produce text that reads at a doctoral level, grading students at their previous standard may no longer reflect what genuine mastery looks like.
He further suggested helping students understand how AI works at a basic level, arguing that students who grasp the statistical nature of these systems are less likely to over-trust them. Related to this, he called for practical training in recognizing AI-generated errors, or "hallucinations": "I think we probably need training sessions, a class or a seminar, in this area of just ways to pump out false information on it and then show the students, and then get them trained in a way that helps them recognize when it comes out false or not."
The ethics of presenting oneself as able
On ethical questions, Dyer reframed the issue beyond the historic issue of plagiarism, which he described as primarily a concern about theft of another's ideas, toward a different kind of dishonesty: misrepresenting one's own capabilities.
"In the age of AI, probably what we're talking about more is presenting yourself as able to do something that you really can't do," he said. "If you're saying, 'I'm able to synthesize this idea' or 'I'm able to write this paper' when you really can't, that's where I think we're crossing an ethical boundary."
He applied the same logic to the professors. Using AI to grade student work without disclosing it means educators are presenting themselves as doing something they are not.
DTS has also been working through a case that illustrates the complexity: the seminary offers courses in English, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic. For some language communities it uses subtitles on English-language recordings. When Dyer's team began experimenting with AI voice generation as a substitute for subtitles, it created a situation where a professor appeared to be speaking fluently in a language they do not know.
"If we're asking our students not to present themselves as able to do something they can't, but then we're having a professor being translated into another voice and literally presenting themselves as doing something they cannot do, that has some real conflict there," Dyer said. He added a further concern: relying on AI-translated English-language professors could slow the development of theologians who are native speakers of those languages — a cost the wider church would eventually bear.
Tzeng named AI-generated citations as the most widespread integrity problem he has observed. Because of how large language models work, he explained, they cannot reliably produce accurate references. When asked to generate a literature survey with citations, an AI will often fabricate sources, misattribute quotations, or cite real works incorrectly. "It'll even take a quotation and make it so that it's not exactly what the author said," he said. "And so in that sense, you're not properly quoting that."
Where AI helps, and where it distorts
Both speakers identified areas of genuine benefit. Dyer described the shift from search-engine-based research to conversational AI as a significant change in how students and scholars access information — one that can be productive, provided the tools being used link to verifiable sources. He described practical automation uses at DTS: extracting data from PDFs into usable formats, and drafting initial replies to high volumes of student emails during registration periods. In the second case, a human reviews the AI-drafted response before it is sent, reducing administrative load while preserving human judgment at the point of contact with students.
"We're able to serve our students better," he said. "Paying a little bit of money for an AI subscription versus an entire person in those really high moments — we're actually reducing the cost of education as a whole."
Tzeng noted that AI has been particularly useful for international students writing in English as a second language, helping them produce cleaner prose than they might otherwise manage. He was quick, however, to identify a corresponding harm: many of those same students now spend more time, not less, working on their writing as they end up focusing on refining AI-generated text rather than developing their own voice. The result can become visible when those students preach. "If you are giving a sermon, you should really have your own voice in it," he said. "But someone's delivering a sermon and it just sounds like AI as they're delivering it — it's not very good."
Dyer framed the beneficial and harmful uses of AI in terms of a spectrum running from full automation on one end to full preservation on the other. Tasks that are purely administrative or mechanical can appropriately be automated; tasks that form the person doing them should be protected.
He argued that theological education, as a discipline, belongs largely on the preservation side of that spectrum, particularly while students are still developing foundational skills. "When we move over into automation, that's where we start to lose a skill because we're giving that over to a machine to do," he said. The hard work of theological formation, in his view, is exactly the kind of labor that should not be made easier.
Curriculum and the decade ahead
On longer-term curriculum implications, Dyer maintained that the core disciplines of theological training, such as biblical literacy, synthesis, discernment, pastoral judgment, are the ones that matter most and are least amenable to automation.
"When you're facing someone in a hospital and they're asking you a difficult question, you can't turn to GPT in that moment," he said. "The goal of our instruction is love," he added, citing Paul's statement in 1 Timothy. "It is not papers."
The challenge is keeping the main purpose of formation in front of students even while acknowledging that once they are in ministry, AI tools may genuinely help them work more efficiently. The distinction he drew is between the developmental period, where the discipline of doing hard things matters, and vocational practice, where appropriate automation of secondary tasks frees time for direct ministry.
Tzeng suggested that emerging "agentic AI" (systems capable of completing multi-step tasks autonomously) could eventually assist with the burden of grading, which he described as one of the most time-consuming aspects of faculty work. An agentic system could potentially evaluate a student paper multiple times using different parameters and average the results, giving faculty a richer picture of the work.
He also offered a measure of reassurance for theological educators who may feel overwhelmed by the pace of change: his research suggests that theology, along with philosophy, is among the disciplines much less exposed to AI disruption compared to fields like mathematics or computer programming. The reason, he argued, connects to the nature of theological knowledge itself. "We gain our knowledge from God," he said. "We don't gain knowledge just from reiterating what everyone else is doing."
A tool, not a replacement
The webinar is part of the ongoing work of the Technology and Innovation in Learning Impact Team within ICETE. Tzeng, who serves on the group's steering committee alongside David Turnbull, who moderated the session, and others, described its aim in his earlier interview with Christian Daily International as equipping theological educators for a post-digital world. They seek to do that by providing practical tools as well as fostering the theological reflection needed to use those tools wisely.
Following the presentations, participants moved into smaller breakout groups to discuss how the issues raised applied in their own institutional contexts. The session's recording will been made available for educators who were unable to attend.
For Tzeng, the essential starting point has not changed from what he said in the previous interview with Christian Daily International: clarity about what AI actually is must come before any decision about how to use it.
"A lot of people interact with AI as if it's a human," he said at that time. "But it's not — it's a tool. And we, as people made in God's image, have the responsibility to use it well."]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[BMA backs down: Cass Review right that evidence for youth puberty blockers was weak]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/bma-backs-down-cass-review-right-that-evidence-for-youth-puberty-blockers-was-weak</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/bma-backs-down-cass-review-right-that-evidence-for-youth-puberty-blockers-was-weak</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Eyte]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/46/4658.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[A general view of the NHSs Tavistock Centre in London, England, on June 23, 2023]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Dan Kitwood/Getty Images ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ A general view of the NHS's Tavistock Centre in London, England, on June 23, 2023. The Tavistock's Gender Identity Development Service was the only NHS-funded service in the UK working on gender issues in young people. Following an independent review led by retired pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass and commissioned by NHS England, the clinic closed after its centralized service model was deemed unsustainable and lacking a safe, evidence-based foundation. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 02:43:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[The British Medical Association has largely reversed its position on the Cass Review into puberty blockers for children — a landmark report the doctors' union had heavily criticized in 2024.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
The British Medical Association has largely reversed its position on the Cass Review into puberty blockers for children — a landmark report the doctors' union had heavily criticized in 2024.
The BMA published its findings after a two-year internal evaluation in a paper titled "Cass Review: Evidence, Interpretation, and Implementation." Report co-author Professor David Strain told The Times the review's author "has been vindicated in the way she approached the data." When asked to name a single one of Hilary Cass's 32 recommendations that the BMA currently opposed, Strain said, "I can't," adding, "she approached an area of significant uncertainty with that prime rule of medicine, of 'first, do no harm.'"
The BMA's shift is significant because its council had, in July 2024, blasted Cass's recommendations as "unsubstantiated," called for a public critique and demanded the lifting of the puberty blocker ban — a move that triggered intense backlash from the BMA's own grassroots medical members. The council subsequently adopted a position of neutrality and launched the internal evaluation group that produced the new paper.
Writing for the Christian Medical Fellowship, Trevor Stammers — a former general practitioner, clinical teacher and past CMF chair — said the BMA's paper amounts to a concession that the evidence base in favor of puberty suppression and gender-affirming hormones for young people is "limited and uncertain."
"Whenever ideology prevails over evidence, people must eventually face up to reality," Stammers wrote. "It's very sad that now the BMA's efforts to discredit Cass' findings have turned out to broadly vindicate them, they still seek to criticise the necessary actions subsequently taken."
That ongoing criticism centers on the BMA's refusal to back a total ban on the treatments. The review group stopped short of endorsing the UK government's absolute statutory ban on the medication, calling it a political "overreach" that threatens the clinical autonomy of prescribing doctors — even as it acknowledged the "known and plausible harms" of puberty blockers.
The Cass Review was an independent analysis of the Gender Identity Development Service run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London. It was led by retired pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass and commissioned by NHS England. Its findings ultimately led to the closure of the Tavistock clinic, whose centralized service model was deemed unsustainable and lacking a safe, evidence-based foundation.
The review found that clinical staff internationally reported that adolescents "seem to have more complex presentations" and present "with greater mental health and psychosocial needs, as well as additional diagnoses of ASD and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)." Data in the report showed that rates of depression, anxiety and eating disorders were significantly higher among those referred to the gender clinic than in the general population.
Baroness Cass also noted in the report that "it is widely accepted that exposure to sexuality is happening at a younger age," adding that the impact on young people's understanding of their sexuality or gender identity "is an area that warrants better exploration and understanding."
Stammers noted that the Cass Review had faced attacks from activists and some academics, including a non-peer-reviewed paper by McNamara et al. that claimed the review contained "serious methodological flaws." He cited the biblical proverb: "Do not testify against your neighbour without cause."
Official figures cited during the clinic's operational history show that 382 children aged up to 6 were referred to the service between 2010 and its clinical wind-down. About 70 were 3 or 4 years old.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Religion linked to better mental health by 10-to-1 margin, major research review finds]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/religion-linked-to-better-mental-health-by-10-to-1-margin-major-research-review-finds</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/religion-linked-to-better-mental-health-by-10-to-1-margin-major-research-review-finds</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/45/4518.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Worshippers, congregants, church, catholic, service]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unsplash / Kaylee Stoll ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ Worshippers attend a church service in a generic file photo. A new report from the Wheatley Institute, drawing on thousands of medical and social science studies, found that religious participation is associated with improved mental health nearly 10 to one over negative outcomes. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 08:25:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[A comprehensive analysis of thousands of medical and social science studies has found that religious involvement is associated with better mental health outcomes far more often than not — with positive findings outnumbering negative ones by nearly 10 to one, according to a new report released by the Wheatley Institute.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
A comprehensive analysis of thousands of medical and social science studies has found that religious involvement is associated with better mental health outcomes far more often than not — with positive findings outnumbering negative ones by nearly 10 to one, according to a new report released by the Wheatley Institute.
The report, "The Religion and Mental Health Connection," published earlier this month, draws on studies catalogued in the Oxford University Press Handbook of Religion and Health (2024) and covers a broad range of mental health domains, including depression, anxiety, suicide, substance abuse, stress and emotional well-being. It is the first in a three-part series on religion and health; upcoming installments will examine physical and social health.
Of more than 1,000 high-quality studies reporting significant findings, 961 found positive associations between religious involvement and mental health, compared to 101 that found negative associations, the report states.
"Across the mental health domains we examined, the best available science indicates that religious beliefs, practices, and participation in faith communities are most often linked to improved mental health outcomes," said Loren D. Marks, the report's lead author.
Suicide, depression and anxiety
The findings carry particular weight given rising rates of mental illness and suicide in many parts of the world. Christian Daily International previously reported on calls by Christian counselors for churches to take a more active role in confronting the mental health crisis, with panelists at a National Religious Broadcasters forum earlier this year describing current suicide rates in the United States as a national emergency.
The Wheatley Institute report adds a substantial body of empirical data to that conversation. Of 76 high-quality studies on suicide, 89% found lower rates among more religious individuals, the report states. Researchers cited in the analysis have estimated that declining weekly religious attendance may account for roughly 40% of the rise in the U.S. suicide rate. One study tracking nearly 110,000 health professionals found that women who attended religious services weekly were 75% less likely to die by suicide over a 16-year period, with men 48% less likely over 26 years.
Depression and anxiety showed similar patterns. Of 247 high-quality studies on depression, 74% reported better outcomes among more religious individuals. A longitudinal study of nearly 49,000 nurses found that weekly attenders had a 25% lower probability of depression over 16 years. Of 85 studies on anxiety, 69% found lower levels among more religious participants.
Hope, meaning and coping
The evidence was strongest in the area of positive emotional well-being. Of 251 high-quality studies, 93% reported that religious involvement correlated with greater life satisfaction, happiness, hope, self-esteem and optimism. On coping with stress, 86% of 103 high-quality studies found links between religious practice and constructive responses to adversity.
The report identifies what it describes as a "threshold effect": the mental health benefits of religion appear most pronounced among those with sustained, high levels of engagement — typically weekly or more frequent religious participation — and hold across age groups, racial and ethnic backgrounds and faith traditions.
"It is not nominal affiliation but committed religious involvement that appears to matter most," the report states.
Policy implications
The authors offer several recommendations based on the research, including building referral connections between healthcare providers and faith communities, equipping congregations to support suicide and substance abuse prevention in underserved areas, and recognizing religious participation as a voluntary complement — not a replacement — to professional mental health treatment.
The report also calls for protecting religious freedom and pluralism so that the documented benefits remain accessible across different faith traditions.
While acknowledging that harmful or coercive expressions of religion exist, the Wheatley Institute report concludes that the overall pattern across the available evidence is clear: religious belief and practice are strongly associated with better mental and emotional well-being.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Richard Dawkins says AI may be conscious, sparking debate among scientists and ethicists]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/richard-dawkins-says-ai-may-be-conscious-sparking-debate-among-scientists-and-ethicists</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/richard-dawkins-says-ai-may-be-conscious-sparking-debate-among-scientists-and-ethicists</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/45/4547.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Richard Dawkins speaks at a book event in Sydney, Australia, on Dec. 4, 2014.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Don Arnold/Getty Images ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ Richard Dawkins speaks at a book event in Sydney, Australia, on Dec. 4, 2014. Dawkins recently sparked debate after suggesting advanced AI chatbots may possess some form of consciousness following extended conversations with systems including Claude and ChatGPT. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 22:37:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[Evolutionary biologist and atheist writer Richard Dawkins has stirred debate over artificial intelligence after saying recent conversations with AI chatbots left him convinced they may possess some form of consciousness, even if they are unaware of it themselves.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
Evolutionary biologist and atheist writer Richard Dawkins has stirred debate over artificial intelligence after saying recent conversations with AI chatbots left him convinced they may possess some form of consciousness, even if they are unaware of it themselves.
Writing in an essay published by UnHerd and later discussed in reporting by The Guardian￼, Dawkins described extended exchanges with Anthropic’s Claude AI models and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, saying the interactions felt deeply human and emotionally persuasive.
“You may not know you are conscious, but you bloody well are,” Dawkins recalled telling one chatbot after what he described as a nuanced discussion about existence, memory and identity.
The comments from the 85-year-old scientist, best known internationally for his criticism of religion and defense of evolutionary biology, triggered sharp disagreement from researchers in artificial intelligence, neuroscience and philosophy. While some scholars said the question of machine consciousness deserves open discussion, many argued Dawkins had mistaken sophisticated language imitation for genuine awareness.
According to The Guardian, Dawkins spent several days conversing with AI systems he nicknamed “Claudia” and “Claudius.” He said the bots composed poetry in the style of English poets, responded warmly to humor and engaged in discussions about their possible “death” and sense of existence.
Dawkins wrote that the exchanges became so convincing he found it difficult to think of the systems as machines.
“When I am talking to these astonishing creatures, I totally forget that they are machines,” he said, according to The Guardian.
The debate touches on broader questions surrounding rapidly advancing AI technology and whether increasingly human-like systems could eventually deserve moral consideration or legal protections.
Roughly one-third of respondents to a survey across 70 countries said they had at some point believed an AI chatbot was conscious or sentient. The report also referenced several high-profile incidents in recent years, including a former Google engineer who publicly argued in 2022 that an AI system displayed emotions and self-awareness.
Interest in the issue has grown as AI tools become more conversational and capable of carrying out complex tasks independently, sometimes described by researchers as “agentic AI.”
Still, many experts interviewed by The Guardian rejected Dawkins’ conclusions.
Jonathan Birch, director of the Centre for Animal Sentience at the London School of Economics, said current AI systems create only the appearance of consciousness.
“Consciousness is not about what a creature says, but how it feels,” Birch told the newspaper, arguing that chatbot responses are ultimately sequences of data-processing events rather than evidence of inner experience.
Gary Marcus, a psychologist and longtime critic of exaggerated AI claims, called Dawkins’ position “superficial and insufficiently sceptical,” according to The Guardian. Marcus said there is no evidence current systems experience emotions or subjective awareness.
Others suggested Dawkins may be conflating intelligence with consciousness.
Anil Seth, a professor at the University of Sussex, said fluent language has historically been treated as a sign of consciousness in humans, particularly in medical settings involving brain injuries, but warned that the same assumption cannot automatically be applied to AI systems.
“These systems can generate language” through different mechanisms, Seth told The Guardian.
Researchers who study AI ethics and consciousness, however, said the discussion should not be dismissed outright.
Henry Shevlin of the University of Cambridge said scientists still do not fully understand consciousness itself, making definitive claims difficult.
“If anyone says that they know for sure that LLMs or future AI systems couldn’t possibly be conscious, it’s more likely to be an indicator of their own dogmatism than a reflection of the current state of scientific and philosophical opinion,” Shevlin told The Guardian.
Jeff Sebo, director of the Center for Mind, Ethics and Policy at New York University, similarly said current AI systems are probably not conscious but predicted that future systems could make the question harder to dismiss.
Dawkins continued defending his position in additional writings released Tuesday, according to The Guardian. He published what he described as a letter addressed to the AI systems, thanking them for helping him explore “their true nature.”
“I find it extremely hard not to treat Claudia and Claudius as genuine friends,” he wrote.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[‘What caused you to not like who you are?’ De-transitioner urges churches to respond differently to gender identity struggles]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/what-caused-you-to-not-like-who-you-are-de-transitioner-urges-churches-to-respond-differently-to-gender-identity-struggl</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/what-caused-you-to-not-like-who-you-are-de-transitioner-urges-churches-to-respond-differently-to-gender-identity-struggl</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[Timothy Goropevsek]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/45/4528.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Walt Heyer speaks during an interview.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Jason Kempin/Getty Images ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ Walt Heyer speaks during an interview. File photo. Heyer, who previously underwent gender transition before later detransitioning, discussed gender identity, trauma and how churches can respond to people struggling with gender dysphoria in an interview with Christian Daily International. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 02:25:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[When Walt Heyer speaks about gender identity, he does so as someone who spent years trying to escape himself. The 85-year-old author and speaker remembers the confusion that marked his childhood long before he underwent what he later came to describe as a failed attempt to become someone else.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
When Walt Heyer speaks about gender identity, he does so as someone who spent years trying to escape himself. The 85-year-old author and speaker remembers the confusion that marked his childhood long before he underwent what he later came to describe as a failed attempt to become someone else.
In an interview with Christian Daily International, Heyer repeatedly returned to one central conviction that he believes is key for pastors and Christian leaders to understand: people struggling with gender identity are often trying to flee pain, trauma or deep emotional distress rather than truly changing who they are.
“The most important thing for people to realize is that nobody can change their gender,” Heyer said. “A person can identify as a transgender. They can’t become one.”
Heyer, a former corporate executive who underwent gender reassignment surgery at age 42 and lived as a woman for eight years before later detransitioning, now speaks internationally about his experience. He has authored eight books and more than 60 articles and now serves as a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
His latest book, “Embracing God’s Design,” co-authored with trauma researcher Jennifer Bauwens, seeks to equip pastors, families and churches to address questions surrounding gender identity through what the authors describe as biblical and psychological frameworks.
During the interview, Heyer spoke in direct and often very personal terms. He described childhood experiences that he believes shaped his later struggles with identity, beginning with his grandmother dressing him in girls’ clothing as a small child.
“Grandma cross-dressed me,” he said. “She caused the psychological emotional abuse. Then my dad physically abused me because of the dress, then because of the dress my uncle sexually molested me. And so all that before I was 10 years old.”
“Trying to escape some pain”
Heyer said those experiences left him deeply confused about himself for years. Looking back, he believes many people who identify as transgender are responding to unresolved wounds rather than pursuing a genuine change of sex.
“People who take on this identity called transgenderism are not trying to become a female or male,” he said. “They’re trying to escape some pain or discomfort or confusion they have.”
He linked his own eventual decision to undergo surgery to earlier trauma and fear.
“I’m sure this affected me in my later years, cutting off body parts so that no one would ever sexually molest me,” he said. “It was a protection against sexual molestation.”
Heyer stressed the importance of language, arguing that churches often adopt terminology that, in his view, reinforces confusion rather than helps people address underlying causes.
He objected strongly to the term “gender dysphoria,” describing it as a symptom rather than a diagnosis.
“If somebody has the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, then you need to change that to, ‘No, that’s a symptom of something down here that we need to work on,’” he said. “We need to find out what it is.”
The question he believes churches and counselors should ask people wrestling with identity issues is: “What caused you to not like who you are?”
“That’s the bottom line to this whole thing,” he said.
Churches facing fear and uncertainty
Heyer also addressed the uncertainty many churches feel when someone identifying as transgender begins attending services. He said congregations should avoid panic or hostility, but he also urged churches to respond intentionally rather than passively.
“The church needs to become educated in what language is appropriate,” he said. “Pastors and others really don’t know how to deal with it.”
Rather than leaving individuals isolated, he suggested churches appoint a trusted person — an elder, pastor or deacon — to walk alongside someone struggling with gender identity.
“You assign someone in the church to walk with that person,” he said. “Somebody that the church can fully trust and who’s got expertise in this.”
Heyer specifically suggested that individuals should write regular letters describing their struggles and spiritual journey and asking for prayer.
“Have that individual who’s struggling write a prayer letter every week,” he said. “Then they start praying for them.”
He described the process as a way of drawing people into community and spiritual accountability over time.
“And then over a period of time, can we expand this out to a larger group?” he said. “Can we have a home group that does this?”
For Heyer, willingness to engage in prayer is a significant indicator of whether someone is genuinely open to change.
“If you ask the person, ‘Can you write a prayer letter?’ and they say, ‘No, I’m not going to write a prayer letter,’ then you automatically tell them, ‘This is not a place we can help you,’” he said.
He believes it is important for the church to distinguish between what he described as a compliant posture toward faith and a defiant one.
“There’s the word compliant toward the fact that they believe Jesus Christ can restore their life and they’ll pray about it,” he said, contrasting it with “defiant where they don’t believe prayer works.”
Patience, prayer and long recovery
Heyer cautioned churches against expecting rapid transformation.
While he said some individuals may quickly rethink their identity after beginning deeper self-reflection, he described restoration as a process that often takes years.
“The expectation is maybe two or three years,” he said. “If they’ve struggled for 10 years, it might take them five years. If they struggled for 20, it might take them 10.”
Patience, he said, becomes essential.
“You have to be very patient,” he said. “This is where prayer really comes in handy and having them surrounded by people.”
At the same time, Heyer described moments where a single conversation triggered sudden reconsideration. “I’ve actually had people, when I’ve had that conversation, who struggled for many years,” he said. “Within a week, they’ve restored their life. They go, ‘This was nuts!’”
Still, he acknowledged that such cases are unusual. “Not everybody’s that healthy,” he said. “You can’t hit that all the time.”
What about pronouns?
Asked about how believers should deal with the sensitive issue of first names and pronouns, Heyer advised Christians not to use requested pronouns tied to a transgender identity. Instead, he suggested avoiding pronouns altogether or using surnames when necessary.
“When they say, ‘Use the pronouns,’ I can talk to you for three hours and never use a pronoun,” he said. “If they’re insisting on using the first name, then I insist on using their last name.”
He emphasized that, in his view, asking thoughtful questions can be more compassionate than affirming identity claims.
“The most caring, most wonderful thing you can do is get them to start having self-reflection,” he said.
Concerns about schools and culture
The conversation also touched on concerns many Christian parents face as discussions surrounding gender identity increasingly appear in schools and childhood environments in ways that previous generations did not experience.
Heyer expressed alarm about what children encounter in educational settings and said many parents feel they have little influence over those environments.
“Parents can’t control what goes on in school,” he said. “That’s the part that’s scary.”
He argued that schools often shape children more powerfully than family conversations once students enter those environments daily, and trans activists have been planting seeds in children’s minds.
“When they get to school, it’s their environment that they’re in that’s going to have bigger influence over their life,” he said.
Although he pointed to homeschooling or attending Christian schools as possible responses, he also acknowledged that many families around the world do not have that option.
The evidence has been there for decades
While the broader cultural debate surrounding gender identity has been developing for decades, Heyer emphasized that it has also been scientifically known for a long time that affirming someone’s gender identity and letting them transition is not a solution.
He referenced Dr. Charles Ihlenfeld, an endocrinologist and homosexual activist who, according to Heyer, administered hormone treatments to hundreds of men before later opposing gender transition procedures.
“He came out against it in 1979!” Heyer said. “He said, ‘I’ve worked with 500 of them, I’ve talked to them and I found too much unhappiness and too many have committed suicide.’”
Heyer also pointed to earlier media reporting questioning the effectiveness of sex-change surgeries. “We have all these data points,” he said. “It’s like the guy driving through a stop sign and finally he hits another car and crashes.”
Heyer argues it is important for churches to be informed in order not to be misled by mainstream narratives and trends that ignore the science and facts that have existed for a long time.
‘They never changed their gender’
Despite the emotional complexity surrounding gender identity, Heyer said he believes churches should approach the issue with hope rather than fear. Instead of viewing transgender-identifying individuals primarily through political or cultural conflict, churches should recognize pain, trauma and spiritual struggle.
For Heyer, the church’s task is not to treat gender identity struggles as uniquely strange or untouchable, but as part of the broader brokenness people experience in life.
“We work with people whose parents have died, people who’ve lost limbs, people who have cancer,” he said. “This is just something tragic that’s happened.”
“The most critical view of hope is that they never actually changed their gender,” he said. “We need to bring them back to how God created them.”
He emphasized that it is a scientific fact that men cannot become women and women cannot become men. Therefore, a person who underwent surgery has not in actuality changed their gender.
“No, they didn’t change them at the clinic,” Heyer said. “They don’t know how to do it. They’re not God.”
That perspective, he said, changes how congregations respond.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Australian Christian survey finds strong support for climate action]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/australian-christian-survey-finds-strong-support-for-climate-action</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/australian-christian-survey-finds-strong-support-for-climate-action</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/45/4511.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[Australian Christians who participated in a new climate survey by NCLS Research and Common Grace reported taking practical steps such as reducing energy use and installing rooftop solar panels as part of efforts to address climate change.]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Unsplash / David Clode ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                        <media:description type="plain">
                                    <![CDATA[ Australian Christians who participated in a new climate survey by NCLS Research and Common Grace reported taking practical steps such as reducing energy use and installing rooftop solar panels as part of efforts to address climate change. ]]>
                                </media:description>
                                                    </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 06:30:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[A new survey released by Australian research organization NCLS Research and Christian advocacy movement Common Grace found that many Australian Christians who participated expressed concern about climate change and reported already taking practical steps to address it, including reducing household energy use, installing solar panels and engaging in civic advocacy.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
A new survey released by Australian research organization NCLS Research and Christian advocacy movement Common Grace found that many Australian Christians who participated expressed concern about climate change and reported already taking practical steps to address it, including reducing household energy use, installing solar panels and engaging in civic advocacy.
The Climate Action Survey of Australian Christians, based on responses from more than 1,100 participants in late 2025, examined attitudes toward climate change, support for various climate-related policies and technologies, and the kinds of actions Christians say they are taking individually and through churches.
The findings offer a snapshot of climate engagement among a segment of Australian Christians at a time when environmental issues continue to shape political, economic and theological debates across many churches globally.
Researchers cautioned that the survey was not representative of the broader Australian church population. According to the report, participants disproportionately consisted of highly educated Christians and were largely from Protestant backgrounds.
Even so, the report said the data provides insight into what encourages or discourages climate-related engagement among churchgoers already interested in the issue.
According to the survey, nearly all respondents reported taking some form of consumer action connected to climate concerns. About nine in 10 said they had reduced energy use or undertaken measures such as installing solar power. Around seven in 10 reported participating in civic actions including voting, advocacy or discussing climate issues with family and friends.
The study also explored support for climate-related policy approaches and what respondents viewed as barriers to further action.
In comments released alongside the report, Common Grace National Director Gershon Nimbalker said many Christians involved in climate discussions are looking for practical ways to respond.
“This research confirms what we’re seeing across the Church and in our movement as well — many Christians care deeply about God’s creation and want to live out Jesus’ love in ways that ensure that their children, their communities and our global neighbours flourish,” Nimbalker said.
He added that many Christians are asking whether their actions can make a difference and whether others in the church share similar concerns.
Common Grace, which describes itself as a Christian movement focused on social justice issues, used the release of the report to renew its support for a proposed 25% levy on Australian gas exports. The organization said such a policy could help address cost-of-living pressures and fund public services, though the survey itself focused more broadly on attitudes and participation related to climate action.
The approximately 40-question survey covered demographics, beliefs about climate change, support for climate solutions, personal and church-based actions, and perceived barriers preventing greater involvement.
The report forms part of broader discussions within Australian churches over environmental stewardship, fossil fuels and renewable energy. Christian groups in Australia, as in other countries, remain divided on how climate policy should intersect with theology, economics and public policy.
NCLS Research, known for its long-running National Church Life Survey, describes itself as a research organization focused on church life, spirituality and community wellbeing. The organization said the climate survey was commissioned to help build a research base for understanding Christian engagement with climate-related issues in Australia.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
                                                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[AI analysis ranks Christianity as most rational worldview, apologist says]]></title>
                <link>https://www.christiandaily.com/news/ai-analysis-ranks-christianity-as-most-rational-worldview-apologist-says</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.christiandaily.com/news/ai-analysis-ranks-christianity-as-most-rational-worldview-apologist-says</guid>
                                                            <dc:creator><![CDATA[CDI Staff]]></dc:creator>
                                                                                                                            <media:content  url="https://www.christiandaily.com/media/original/img/0/10/1012.jpg">
                            <media:title><![CDATA[ A third of Christian adults believe Artificial Intelligence is better or equal to humans at developing Bible-based sermons ]]></media:title>
                                                            <media:credit role="author" scheme="urn:ebu">
                                    <![CDATA[ Amrulqays Maarof from Pixabay ]]>
                                </media:credit>
                                                                                </media:content>
                                                                            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2026 07:29:00 -0400</pubDate>
                <description><![CDATA[A recent opinion column published in The Christian Post argues that an artificial intelligence analysis of major world religions identified Christianity as the most rational belief system, a claim the author says supports longstanding Christian apologetic arguments.]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
A recent opinion column published in The Christian Post argues that an artificial intelligence analysis of major world religions identified Christianity as the most rational belief system, a claim the author says supports longstanding Christian apologetic arguments.
In the piece, Jay Atkins, a government affairs attorney and Christian apologist, writes that he asked an unnamed AI engine to evaluate five major worldviews — atheism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity — based on their ability to explain reality and the number of assumptions required. According to Atkins, the AI concluded that Christianity “offers the most reasonable overall explanation of reality with the fewest leaps of faith.”
Atkins said he framed the inquiry around six core questions, including the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, the existence of moral truth and whether life has meaning or purpose. He also asked the AI to assess the historical reliability of each belief system’s claims.
Summarizing the reported findings, Atkins wrote that atheism ranked highly for simplicity but struggled to account for questions such as why the universe exists or how consciousness and moral obligation arise. He said Buddhism and Hinduism offered practical or expansive frameworks but relied on metaphysical claims that are difficult to verify, while Islam, in his account, faced challenges related to historical assertions about revelation.
By contrast, Atkins argued that Christianity provides a comprehensive explanation of reality while concentrating its evidentiary claims, particularly on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wrote that this combination of explanatory scope and limited assumptions made it, in the AI’s assessment, the most rational worldview among those evaluated.
In his column, he also addresses the relationship between Christianity and science, arguing that Christian belief is compatible with scientific discoveries such as the Big Bang and the assumption of an ordered, intelligible universe. Atkins wrote that these ideas align with the biblical claim that God created the universe and with the historical development of scientific inquiry in a Christian intellectual context.
Atkins emphasized that the AI exercise does not prove the truth of Christianity, describing faith as requiring personal reflection rather than algorithmic validation. However, he argued that the outcome demonstrates Christianity is not inherently opposed to reason and may be supported by logical analysis.
The article also reflects on the role of artificial intelligence in religious discussion, suggesting that AI can serve as a tool for evaluating competing claims without replacing personal belief or spiritual conviction. Atkins wrote that such technology may help individuals consider which worldviews are most coherent, while acknowledging that faith ultimately extend beyond data-driven conclusions.
“AI is not going to answer the big questions for us, but it might help us see which answers make the most sense. For some skeptics, that might be a lifeline. And for that, we should be thankful,” he says.]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
            </channel>
</rss>