Explore the vast range of titles available.

Assisted reproduction, with its test tubes, injections, and gamete donors, raises concerns about the nature of life and kinship. Yet these concerns do not take the same shape around the world. In this innovative ethnography of in vitro fertilization in Ecuador, Elizabeth F.S. Roberts explores how reproduction by way of biotechnological assistance is not only accepted but embraced despite widespread poverty and condemnation from the Catholic Church. Roberts' intimate portrait of IVF practitioners and their patients reveals how technological intervention is folded into an Andean understanding of reproduction as always assisted, whether through kin or God. She argues that the Ecuadorian incarnation of reproductive technology is less about a national desire for modernity than it is a product of colonial racial history, Catholic practice, and kinship configurations. God's Laboratory offers a grounded introduction to critical debates in medical anthropology and science studies, as well as a nuanced ethnography of the interplay between science, religion, race and history in the formation of Andean families.

Following Einstein’s prediction that “Physics constitutes a logical system of thought” and “Nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas”, this topical review outlines a formal extension of local realism limited by the speed of light to global realism with bipolar strings (GRBS) that unifies the principle of locality with quantum nonlocality. The related literature is critically reviewed to justify GRBS which is shown as a necessary and inevitable consequence of the Bell test and an equilibrium-based axiomatization of physics and quantum information science for brain–universe similarity and human-level intelligence. With definable causality in regularity and mind–light–matter unity for quantum superposition/entanglement, bipolar universal modus ponens (BUMP) in GRBS makes quantum emergence and submergence of spacetime logically ubiquitous in both the physical and mental worlds—an unexpected but long-sought simplification of quantum gravity with complete background independence. It is shown that GRBS forms a basis for quantum intelligence (QI)—a spacetime transcendent, quantum–digital compatible, analytical quantum computing paradigm where bipolar strings lead to bipolar entropy as a nonlinear bipolar dynamic and set–theoretic unification of order and disorder as well as linearity and nonlinearity for energy/information conservation, regeneration, and degeneration toward quantum cognition and quantum biology (QCQB) as well as information-conservational blackhole keypad compression and big bang data recovery. Subsequently, GRBS is justified as a real-world quantum gravity (RWQG) theory—a bipolar relativistic causal–logical reconceptualization and unification of string theory, loop quantum gravity, and M-theory—the three roads to quantum gravity. Based on GRBS, the following is posited: (1) life is a living bipolar superstring regulated by bipolar entropy; (2) thinking with consciousness and memory growth as a prerequisite for human-level intelligence is fundamentally mind–light–matter unitary QI logically equivalent to quantum emergence (entanglement) and submergence (collapse) of spacetime. These two posits lead to a positive answer to the question “If AI machine cannot think, can QI machine think?”. Causal–logical brain modeling (CLBM) for entangled machine thinking and imagination (EMTI) is proposed and graphically illustrated. The testability and falsifiability of GRBS are discussed.

Dariusz Łukasiewicz’s probabilistic theism arises from a non-classical understanding of the nature of God, especially the attributes of simplicity and omnipotence. The redefinition of these attributes in terms of modern analytical philosophy means that probabilistic theism is closer to open theism than to classical theism. However, an extremely important merit of this approach is the development of a comprehensive scientific component for open theism (which is built on biblical foundations), which means that probabilistic theism enables the extension of open theism to the perspective of modern natural sciences. The fundamental meaning of probabilistic theism is not so much the reconciliation of the occurrence of accidental events with the theory of providence, but rather it gives the possibility of open theism to enter into theistic debates among contemporary scientists, not only philosophers and theologians. Without this, open theism remains within a narrow theological perspective, interesting only to Christian theologians or scientists professing the Christian worldview. Teizm probabilistyczny Dariusza Łukasiewicza wyrasta z nieklasycznego rozumienia natury Boga, zwłaszcza atrybutów prostoty i wszechmocy. Redefinicja tych atrybutów w kategoriach współczesnej filozofii analitycznej powoduje, że teizm probabilistyczny jest bliższy teizmu otwartego niż klasycznego teizmu. Jednak niezwykle ważną zasługą tego podejścia jest opracowanie wszechstronnego komponentu naukowego dla teizmu otwartego (który jest ciągle budowany na podstawach biblijnych), co powoduje, że teizm probabilistyczny umożliwia poszerzenie teizmu otwartego o perspektywę współczesnej nauki (współczesnych nauk przyrodniczych). Fundamentalnym znaczeniem teizmu probabilistycznego jest nie tyle pogodzenie występowania zdarzeń przypadkowych z teorią opatrzności, co raczej danie możliwości teizmowi otwartemu do wypłynięcia na szerokie wody dzisiejszych debat teistycznych, toczonych wśród współczesnych naukowców, a nie tylko wśród filozofów i teologów. Bez tego teizm otwarty pozostaje w ramach wąskiej teologicznej perspektywy, interesującej tylko dla teologów chrześcijańskich lub naukowców wyznających światopogląd chrześcijański.

Recent attacks on the compatibility of science and religion by the “militant modern atheists” (Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens) have posed serious challenges for anyone who supports the human importance of religious faith (particularly their identification of “faith” with “believing without evidence”). This article offers a critical analysis of their claims compared with those who do not equate faith with belief. I conclude that (i) the militant modern atheist interpretation of faith undervalues transformative religious experiences, (ii) that more people of faith hold it for this reason than their opponents acknowledge, and (iii) that meaningful dialogue between religion and science is both possible and desirable.