Kerby Anderson
The authors of their book, The Sovereign Individual, explain that we are entering into the fourth stage of human society. First, there were the hunting and gathering societies. Then came the agricultural societies. More recently we had the industrial societies. Now, we live within informational societies.
Although the book was written in the 1990s, there are sections of the book that are quoted even now in the second decade of the 21st century. The authors predicted we would use our phones for news, information, and financial transactions. They predicted more people would be learning online. More and more people would be working remotely. And they predicted the rise of “cybercash” and privatized money.
But let me also add that they were also like a typical baseball player and had both hits and misses. But we should appreciate the predictions that were on target. The accuracy of their predictions resulted in part because of the pandemic and lockdowns. The last two years accelerated the trends of remote working and online education. A federal government that printed so much money, increased consumer interest in cryptocurrencies and digital cash.
The authors say we can learn lessons from the past as we see what happened when the agricultural revolution changed society. We can see parallels between the decline of the Church and what they predict will be the decline of the nation-state. Mass production of books ended the Church’s monopoly on Scripture and information. They predict that the information revolution will destroy the power of the nation-state, and allow people to change locations if laws, taxes, or regulations are unfavorable.
Although this book was written two decades ago, it predicted many of the changes we are seeing in our world today during this fourth stage of society.

Penna Dexter
The New York Times recently reported on an “emerging truth” among Christians. Correspondent Ruth Graham writes, “For the first time in modern American history, young men are now more religious than their female peers. They attend services more often and are more likely to identify as religious.”
This dynamic applies only to Christians who are part of Generation Z. (Gen Z currently encompasses ages 12-27.) A survey of over 5000 Americans done last year by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute found that, in every other demographic, men were more likely than women to describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated. But, the study shows that within Gen Z, the opposite is the case. As The Times’ Ruth Graham puts it: “The men are staying in church, while the women are leaving at a remarkable clip.”
A recent Wall Street Journal article outlined the metrics in which young men “keep falling behind” their female peers. Fewer are attending college. Fewer are employed. Fewer are looking for work or obtaining workforce training. Fewer feel needed.  More report being lonely. More commit suicide.
One reason more young men are in church may be that many churches are intentionally speaking to these trends. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat writes, “It may be, then, that churches that seem like home to young men are particularly well positioned to do that kind of work — stabilizing and elevating men who are currently adrift and making them more appealing as potential spouses than any currently available force in either ‘normie’ or very online culture.”
The AEI survey shows 61 percent of Gen Z women identify as feminist. Perhaps they’re not as onboard with this “macho Christianity.” Mary Harrington, author of Feminism Against Progress, coined the term and says young men are attracted to “a Christianity that is prepared to fight, to struggle, to refuse therapeutic winsomeness.”
Hopefully, these guys will invite the girls back to church.

Kerby Anderson
You are probably aware that Americans distrust science and science magazines more than in the past. But you may not know how much has evaporated. Back in 1975 (when I was finishing a graduate degree in science), Gallup documented that most Americans trusted science. In fact, Republicans trusted science more than Democrats did, 72 percent to 67 percent. Republican confidence in science dropped to 45 percent by 2021.
Christian Schneider argues “Politicized science may make us sicker.” He reminds us of the tactic used against President George W. Bush when his opponents argued that his common-sense regulations of fetal stem cells were hurting and killing people. He quoted from columnist Charles Krauthammer who said he had “never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery” and added that “Hope is good. False hope is bad.”
Americans don’t even trust science journals, which have become political. Scientific American has started endorsing presidential candidates: Kamala Harris this year and Joe Biden four years ago.
Heather MacDonald (Manhattan Institute) further documents how science has become political in her book, When Race Trumps Merit. She explains in a recent lecture that the American Medical Association insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. The Smithsonian Institution announced that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness.
We would all benefit if scientists and science magazines got back to doing science and medicine and stop following the woke trends in society. This politicized science may make us sicker.