Most observers agree that education in the sciences in the United States is not where it should be. Commentators like Richard Dawkins think that the lion’s share of the blame must go to that tireless agent of premodern darkness, the religious right. Since the test of intellectual seriousness is acceptance of Darwinism, Exhibit A in their case is the campaign to have Intelligent Design taught in public schools. Is it not self-evident, they say, that a country this hopped-up on theism has gone woolly-minded and is bound to fall behind in serious intellectual achievements?

But the far more credible view, in my mind, is admirably presented by Peter Wood in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The main problem, he thinks, is not the militant obscurantism of the Religious Right but (paradoxically to some) the pedagogical methods embraced by the cultural left.

Earlier today, Keith Pavlischek passed along news that the Democratic Party has dropped its “safe, legal, and rare” platform on abortion. Ironically, the dropping of the word “rare” seems eerily appropriate, as Crain’s reports that 72 abortions occur for every 100 live births in New York:

The continuing boom in abortions—90,157 were performed in the city in 2006, the last year for which statistics are available—apparently means that many women are using abortion as their birth control method of choice. That concerns health advocates, who point out that the procedure sometimes causes complications and is more expensive than contraception. The high rate also shows that these women are not protected against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Christopher Hitchens has a column in the latest issue of the Atlantic on the short stories of Saki. It’s all right, I guess. Not my favorite account, but, then, any mention of Saki is good, if only to remind readers about him.

But how could Hitchens leave out the single greatest Saki story, “The Toys of Peace”? If you haven’t read this story, do so now, and then run out and buy his collected stories. It’s an account of what happens when a well-meaning and right-minded uncle buys his nephews peaceful toys instead of toy soldiers:

On Easter Saturday Harvey Bope unpacked a large, promising-looking red cardboard box under the expectant eyes of his nephews. “Your uncle has brought you the newest thing in toys,” Eleanor had said impressively, and youthful anticipation had been anxiously divided between Albanian soldiery and a Somali camel-corps. Eric was hotly in favour of the latter contingency. “There would be Arabs on horseback,” he whispered; “the Albanians have got jolly uniforms, and they fight all day long, and all night, too, when there’s a moon, but the country’s rocky, so they’ve got no cavalry.”

A quantity of crinkly paper shavings was the first thing that met the view when the lid was removed; the most exciting toys always began like that. Harvey pushed back the top layer and drew forth a square, rather featureless building.

“It’s a fort!” exclaimed Bertie.

“It isn’t, it’s the palace of the Mpret of Albania,” said Eric, immensely proud of his knowledge of the exotic title; “it’s got no windows, you see, so that passers-by can’t fire in at the Royal Family.”

“It’s a municipal dust-bin,” said Harvey hurriedly; “you see all the refuse and litter of a town is collected there, instead of lying about and injuring the health of the citizens.”

In an awful silence he disinterred a little lead figure of a man in black clothes.

“That,” he said, “is a distinguished civilian, John Stuart Mill. He was an authority on political economy.”

“Why?” asked Bertie.

“Well, he wanted to be; he thought it was a useful thing to be.”

Bertie gave an expressive grunt, which conveyed his opinion that there was no accounting for tastes.

Another square building came out, this time with windows and chimneys.

“A model of the Manchester branch of the Young Women’s Christian Association,” said Harvey.

“Are there any lions?” asked Eric hopefully. He had been reading Roman history and thought that where you found Christians you might reasonably expect to find a few lions.

Jody recently sent me an article from the science blog Gene Expression entitled “Historical Dynamics and contingent conditions of religion.” Basically, what the piece argues is that the same types of mathematical formulas that Peter Turchin uses to explain the rise and fall of states can also be used to predict the rise and fall of religions. It is an interesting idea, and his article, while long and rather complex, is certainly worth a read:

Mathematically oriented works are pretty straightforward and you can reject it or accept it (or not understand it). In any case, I want to focus on another issue which is emphasized in Historical Dynamics, the autocatalytic model of religious conversion. The idea here is simple; the rate of conversion is proportional to the number of converts, and the result is a logistic curve over time. Turchin draws strongly upon Rodney Stark & co’s work on the importance of transmission through social networks, and uses textual data to suggest that the growth of Christianity during the Roman Empire, and Islam in both Spain and Iran, seem to map well onto a logistic growth function.

. . .

It seems that autocatalytic process will result in Africa becoming totally Muslim or Christian. On the other hand, if it takes 1,000 years for India and China to become totally Christian or Muslim…well, I’m not sure if that certain projection is really that useful seeing as how 1,000 years is a long enough time that a lot of the background parameters could change. Additionally, there are various frequency dependent dynamics and mixed morphs which are likely operative in these historical social trajectories that I think are being left out in this treatment.

Did you get that? I think the upshot of the whole thing is that mathematical calculations can be useful when trying to evaluate and predict historical trends, even the trends of conversion. The author of the article, however, did a good job emphasizing that this approach to history shouldn’t be understood as an exact science, but rather a tool that can help break down and process extremely complex events. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a good example of how different academic disciplines can interact with and inform each other.

The danger, of course, is that an overly confident mathematical approach to history could produce a new form of historical determinism. Individual human agency, as well as the mysterious agency of the Holy Spirit, would be circumscribed, which, in the end, would be a history hardly worth reading.

A brief but troubling interview with the Republican nominee, posted by the Weekly Standard. “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned,” says his campaign website, “and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.”

Apparently, he feels strongly about this. Or maybe not.

“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain said. “And I also feel that—and I’m not trying to equivocate here—that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out [as a runningmate].” . . .

Of the four individuals most frequently mentioned as potential McCain runningmates—Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty—Lieberman and Ridge are pro-choice and Romney, by his own account, was pro-choice until at least November 2004. (During the primary, McCain’s campaign challenged this claim by highlighting a May 2005 press conference in which Romney said he was committed to the “status quo” on “abortion and choice.”) . . .

“I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life, but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a—albeit strong—but just it’s a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.”

Excluding, from membership and cooperation, people who do not share a fundamental party tenet is one thing. Excluding them from executive power and leadership is quite another. Some disagreements are too strong.

This news comes from Natalie Stilwell, a graduate student in moral theology in northern Virginia:

Yesterday I came across a striking article from the science news site LiveScience: “The Pill Makes Women Pick Bad Mates.” The results of a study headed by evolutionary psychologist Stewart Craig Roberts at the University of Newcastle in England indicate that women on the pill are more likely to be attracted to men who are less biologically suited to be their lifelong mates.

How does this happen? Hormonal contraceptives suppress ovulation by shifting a woman’s hormones to mimic pregnancy. This, as with actual pregnancy, shifts the woman’s sense of attraction toward men who “smell” more like a brother or father–someone whose immune defenses are similar to her own. This is thought to be the case because a pregnant woman has no need of being attracted to any man other than the father of her child, and men such as relatives typically represent protection.

But the effects aren’t as fortunate for a single woman in a contraception-induced, pseudo-pregnant state: She is likely to be most attracted to mates with whom she will have more difficulty carrying to term children, and to whom she will have significantly less romantic attraction after ceasing the pill and beginning to ovulate again.

This isn’t the first such study to be conducted that yielded similar results. Vicki Thorn, founder of Project Rachel and Executive Director of the National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation & Healing (NOPARH), has been following studies like this for many years. It’s her desire to educate men and women on physiological factors influencing their attractions to one another so they will be equipped to make better choices. She also educates those who minister to post-abortive persons in light of the physiological effects abortion has on mothers and fathers.

In a talk given last year to priests and counselors in Arlington, Virginia on “Assisting the Post-Abortive Person,” Thorn introduced many for the first time to what she calls “The Biochemistry of Sex” or the “Biology of the Theology of the Body.” (A portion of her presentation is available in audio online). Her researched material include such insights as to how men’s hormones are changed by their interactions with their pregnant wives, why women often dress differently when ovulating, and how multiple sexual partners can have a negative impact on a woman’s immune system.

Funny how scientific findings on human biochemistry can augment the Church’s longstanding concerns on how contraception would affect women and men. Just how many other negative effects need to materialize before people start to notice?

This just in from Slate magazine, where Linda Hirshman applauds the change in the Democratic Party Platform on abortion. In an aptly titled article “Unnecessarily Evil: Reclaiming the Morality of Abortion and the Overdue Change to the Democratic Platform,” Hirshman applauds the rejection of the “safe, legal, and rare” mantra:

The Democratic Party platform of 2008 finally dropped its old abortion language (”safe, legal and rare”), which had asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must. The 2008 platform, just announced, says instead, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Back in May, the Reverend Tony Campolo, former “spiritual advisor” to President Bill Clinton and evangelical author was appointed to the committee that was to review the Democratic platform. Campolo vowed to represent pro-lifers “to the highest members of the Democratic Party.”  Campolo said he had “received assurances from Democratic officials that the platform committee will hear his pro-life views and that the platform will contain language that addresses the pro-life community’s concerns.”

Nice work, Tony!