[Paleopsych] Journal of Religion and Society: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Sun Oct 2 19:31:35 UTC 2005

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular 
Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
Journal of Religion and Society
[Creighton is a Roman Catholic Jesuit university, founded in Omaha in 1878. 
First, an summary from the Times of London, to which Laird alerted me.]


RUTH GLEDHILL, TIMES, UK -  Religious belief can cause damage to a
society, contributing towards high  murder rates, abortion, sexual
promiscuity and suicide, according to research  published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not  only
unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute  to
social problems. The study counters the view of believers that
religion  is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of
a healthy  society.

It compares the social performance of relatively secular  countries,
such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a  creator
rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals  in
the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that  it
inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and  believers of other faiths hold that
religious belief is socially beneficial,  believing that it helps to
lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide,  sexual promiscuity and
abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a  society have been
described as its "spiritual capital". But the study claims  that the
devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its  ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a  US
academic journal, reports: "Many Americans agree that their
churchgoing  nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the
hill that stands  as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

"In  general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
correlate with  higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
mortality, STD infection  rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the
prosperous democracies. The United  States is almost always the most
dysfunctional of the developing democracies,  sometimes spectacularly so."

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a  social scientist, used
data from the International Social Survey Program,  Gallup and other
research bodies to reach his conclusions. . .

The  study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous
democracy where  murder rates were still high, and that the least
devout nations were the  least dysfunctional. Mr  Paul said that rates
of gonorrhea in  adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than
in less devout  democratic countries. The US also suffered from "
uniquely high" adolescent  and adult syphilis infection rates, and
adolescent abortion rates, the study  suggested. . .

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US  was compared
with other countries, including France, Japan and the  Scandinavian
countries. These nations had been the most successful in  reducing
murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases  and
abortion, he  added.



    ISSN: 1522-5658

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular 
Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

    A First Look

    Gregory S. Paul
    Baltimore, Maryland


    [1] Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the
    existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular
    belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization
    occurred in western nations, the United States being the only
    significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If
    religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of
    this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists
    often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards
    providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a
    healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread
    acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to
    these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet
    to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have
    measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a
    number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and
    McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and
    Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis
    that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based
    on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and
    quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.;
    Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is given by
    Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of
    belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations
    (while Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to
    be suffering unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a
    more systematic examination of the question has not been previously
    executed since the factors required to do so are in place. The
    twentieth century acted, for the first time in human history, as a
    vast Darwinian global societal experiment in which a wide variety of
    dramatically differing social-religious-political-economic systems
    competed with one another, with varying degrees of success. A
    quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a large body
    of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization, and
    societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed
    democracies including the United States.

    [2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has
    been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary
    intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some
    conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is
    not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause
    versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It
    is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark
    future research and debate on the issue.

    The Belief that Religiosity is Socially Beneficial

    [3] As he helped initiate the American experiment Benjamin Franklin
    stated that "religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions,
    give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us
    benevolent, useful and beneficial to others" (Isaacson: 87-88). When
    the theory of biological evolution removed the need for a supernatural
    creator concerns immediately arose over the societal implications of
    widespread abandonment of faith (Desmond and Moore; Numbers). In 1880
    the religious moralist Dostoyevsky penned the famous warning that "if
    God does not exist, then everything is permissible." Even so, in
    Europe the issue has not been a driving focus of public and political
    dispute, especially since the world wars.

    [4] Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution
    creationism[1]<1> is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the
    practical realms of mainstream science and hi-tech industry (Ayala et
    al.; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996, 1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza et al.;
    L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks; Wise; Young and Edis). The
    continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is
    in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by
    concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator
    (Forrest and Gross; Numbers). The person most responsible for
    politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J.
    Bryan,[2]<2> expressed relatively little interest in evolution until
    the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution
    that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for "preaching
    that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the
    supernatural from the Bible" (Numbers: 178).

    [5] In the United States many conservative theists consider
    evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction
    because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a
    moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers;
    Pearcey; Schroeder). The original full title for the creationist
    Discovery Institute was the Discovery Institute for the Renewal of
    Science and Culture (a title still applied to a division), and the
    institute's mission challenges "materialism on specifically scientific
    grounds" with the intent of reversing "some of materialism's
    destructive cultural consequences." The strategy for achieving these
    goals is the "wedge" strategy to insert intelligent design creationism
    into mainstream academe and subsequently destroy Darwinian science
    (Johnson; Forrest and Gross note this effort is far behind schedule).
    The Discovery Institute and the less conservative, even more lavishly
    funded pro-theistic Templeton Foundation fund research into the
    existence and positive societal influence of a creator (Harris et al.;
    Holden). In 2000 the Discovery Institute held a neocreationist seminar
    for members of Congress (Applegate). Politically and socially powerful
    conservatives have deliberately worked to elevate popular concerns
    over a field of scientific and industrial research to such a level
    that it qualifies as a major societal fear factor. The current House
    majority leader T. Daley contends that high crime rates and tragedies
    like the Columbine assault will continue as long schools teach
    children "that they are nothing but glorified apes who have
    evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud" (DeLay and
    Dawson). Today's leaders of the world's largest Christian
    denomination, the Catholic Church, share a dim view of the social
    impact of evolution. In his inauguration speech, Benedict XVI lauded
    the benefits of belief in a creator and contended, "we are not some
    casual and meaningless product of evolution." A leading church cleric
    and theologian (Schonborn) proclaimed that "the overwhelming evidence
    for purpose and design" refutes the mindless creation of Darwinian
    natural selection (also Dean, Dean and Goodstein).

    [6] Agreement with the hypothesis that popular religiosity is
    societally advantageous is not limited to those opposed to
    evolutionary science, or to conservatives. The basic thesis can be
    held by anyone who believes in a benign creator regardless of the
    proposed mode of creation, or the believer's social-political
    worldview. In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is
    socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as
    well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice,
    correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide,
    non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved
    physical health. Such faith-based, virtuous "cultures of life" are
    supposedly attainable if people believe that God created them for a
    special purpose, and follow the strict moral dictates imposed by
    religion. At one end of the spectrum are those who consider creator
    belief helpful but not necessarily critical to individuals and
    societies. At the other end the most ardent advocates consider persons
    and people inherently unruly and ungovernable unless they are strictly
    obedient to the creator (as per Barna; Colson and Pearcey; Johnson;
    Pearcey; Schroeder). Barro labels societal advantages that are
    associated with religiosity "spiritual capital," an extension of
    Putman's concept of "social capital." The corresponding view that
    western secular materialism leads to "cultures of death" is the
    official opinion of the Papacy, which claims, "the proabortion culture
    is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on
    contraception is rejected" (John Paul II). In the United States
    popular support for the cultural and moral superiority of theism is so
    extensive that popular disbelief in God ranks as another major
    societal fear factor.

    [7] The media (Stepp) gave favorable coverage to a report that
    children are hardwired towards, and benefit from, accepting the
    existence of a divine creator on an epidemiological and
    neuro-scientific basis (Benson et al.). Also covered widely was a
    Federal report that the economic growth of nations positively responds
    to high rates of belief in hell and heaven.[3]<3> Faith-based
    charities and education are promoted by the Bush administration[4]<4>
    and religious allies and lobbies as effective means of addressing
    various social problems (Aronson; Goodstein). The conservative Family
    Research Council proclaims, "believing that God is the author of life,
    liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as
    the basis for a just, free and stable society." Towards the liberal
    end of the political spectrum presidential candidate Al Gore supported
    teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe
    Leiberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to "secure
    the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all
    our people," and presidential candidate John Kerry emphasized his
    religious values in the latter part of his campaign.

    [8] With surveys showing a strong majority from conservative to
    liberal believing that religion is beneficial for society and for
    individuals, many Americans agree that their church-going nation is an
    exceptional, God blessed, "shining city on the hill" that stands as an
    impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world. But in the
    other developing democracies religiosity continues to decline
    precipitously and avowed atheists often win high office, even as
    clergies warn about adverse societal consequences if a revival of
    creator belief does not occur (Reid, 2001).

    Procedures and Primary Data Sources

    [9] Levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and
    indicators of societal health and dysfunction, have been most
    extensively and reliably surveyed in the prosperous developed
    democracies ([5]Figures 1-9). Similar data is often lacking for second
    and third world nations, or is less reliable. The cultural and
    economic similarity of the developing democracies minimizes the
    variability of factors outside those being examined. The approximately
    800 million mostly middle class adults and children act as a massive
    epidemiological experiment that allows hypotheses that faith in a
    creator or disbelief in evolution improves or degrades societal
    conditions to be tested on an international scale. The extent of this
    data makes it potentially superior to results based on much smaller
    sample sizes. Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter
    half of the decade, or the early 2000s.

    [10] Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well
    as acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and
    1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey
    Program (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration on social science
    surveys using standard methodologies that currently involves 38
    nations. The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in
    almost all (17) of the developing democracies; Portugal is also
    plotted as an example of a second world European democracy. Results
    for western and eastern Germany are combined following the regions'
    populations. England is generally Great Britain excluding Northern
    Ireland; Holland is all of the Netherlands. The results largely agree
    with national surveys on the same subjects; for example, both ISSP and
    Gallup indicate that absolute plus less certain believers in a higher
    power are about 90% of the U.S. population. The plots include Bible
    literalism and frequency of prayer and service attendance, as well as
    absolute belief in a creator, in order to examine religiosity in terms
    of ardency, conservatism, and activities. Self-reported rates of
    religious attendance and practice may be significantly higher than
    actual rates (Marler and Hadaway), but the data is useful for relative
    comparisons, especially when it parallels results on religious belief.
    The high rates of church attendance reported for the Swiss appear
    anomalous compared to their modest levels of belief and prayer.

    [11] Data on aspects of societal health and dysfunction are from a
    variety of well-documented sources including the UN Development
    Programme (2000). Homicide is the best indicator of societal violence
    because of the extremity of the act and its unique contribution to
    levels of societal fear, plus the relatively reliable nature of the
    data (Beeghley; Neapoletan). Youth suicide (WHO) was examined in order
    to avoid cultural issues related to age and terminal illness. Data on
    STDs, teen pregnancy and birth (Panchaud et al.; Singh and Darroch)
    were accepted only if the compilers concluded that they were not
    seriously underreported, except for the U.S. where under reporting
    does not exaggerate disparities with the other developing democracies
    because they would only close the gaps. Teen pregnancy was examined in
    a young age class in which marriage is infrequent. Abortion data
    (Panchaud et al.) was accepted only from those nations in which it is
    as approximately legal and available as in the U.S. In order to
    minimize age related factors, rates of dysfunction were plotted within
    youth cohorts when possible.

    [12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high
    variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors
    for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the
    purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal
    link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate
    analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce
    errant or desired results,[6]<5> and because the fairly consistent
    characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to
    correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below).
    Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial


    [13] Among the developing democracies absolute belief in God,
    attendance of religious services and Bible literalism vary over a
    dozenfold, atheists and agnostics five fold, prayer rates fourfold,
    and acceptance of evolution almost twofold. Japan, Scandinavia, and
    France are the most secular nations in the west, the United States is
    the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity
    otherwise limited to the second and third worlds (Bishop; PEW).
    Prosperous democracies where religiosity is low (which excludes the
    U.S.) are referred to below as secular developing democracies.

    [14] Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and
    belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative
    ([7]Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest
    agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance
    is found in the most religious developing democracy, the U.S.

    [15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in
    Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all
    secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen
    homicide rates drop to historical lows ([8]Figure 2). The especially
    low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise
    due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not
    consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and
    Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the
    1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that
    retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard
    (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates
    of homicides well above the secular developing democracy norm. Mass
    student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since
    the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School
    Safety Center) than all the secular developing democracies combined.
    Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in
    rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley;
    Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this
    regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide
    (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in
    the prosperous democracies ([9]Figure 3). The positive correlation
    between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable,
    especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer ([10]Figure 4).
    Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise ([11]Figure
    5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only
    exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by
    Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious
    affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower
    juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.[12]<6>

    [16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been
    curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et
    al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three
    hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution
    secular developing democracies ([13]Figure 6). At all ages levels are
    higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also
    suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection
    rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance
    increases ([14]Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly
    eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent
    abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and
    worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing
    non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high
    in the U.S. ([15]Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate
    abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the
    quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped
    in the developing democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but
    rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline
    has been more modest ([16]Figure 9). Broad correlations between
    decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with
    Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et
    al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and
    similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a
    consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled,
    including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France
    and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend -
    contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative
    (Gagnon et al.).


    [17] The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between
    absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the
    lack of a significant religious revival in any developing democracy
    where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies
    can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with
    evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By
    removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief
    optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a
    matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter.
    Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular
    religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event
    that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of
    some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies
    the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not
    enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines

    [18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator
    correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult
    mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the
    prosperous democracies ([17]Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous
    democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin
    predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional
    of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost
    always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a "shining city on the
    hill" to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic
    measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the
    general trend because there is not a significant relationship between
    it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have
    combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high
    rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of
    human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and
    the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None
    of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing
    high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly
    religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from
    less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developing
    democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded,
    sometimes outstandingly so.

    [19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal
    health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the
    opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to
    national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means
    utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to
    govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data
    examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular,
    pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come
    closest to achieving practical "cultures of life" that feature low
    rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related
    dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developing
    democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most
    successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution
    democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good
    conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
    The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal
    disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions
    requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal
    conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a
    doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.


    [20] The United States' deep social problems are all the more
    disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth
    among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN
    Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much
    higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third
    to two or more, than in any other developing democracy (UN Development
    Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient
    western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and
    physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent,
    and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus
    effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social
    conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped
    that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will
    inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions
    include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the
    exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a
    much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less
    wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve
    superior societal health while having little in the way of the
    religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the
    U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of
    evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal
    dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west
    having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy,
    marital and related problems than the northeast where societal
    conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach
    European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the
    responsibility of the research community to address controversial
    issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies
    need to chart their future courses.

    Figures ([18]return)

    Indicators of societal dysfunction and health as functions of
    percentage rates of theistic and non-theistic belief and practice in
    17 first world developed democracies and one second world democracy.
    ISSP questions asked: I know God really exists and I have no doubt
    about it = absolutely believe in God; 2-3 times a month + once a week
    or more = attend religious services at least several times a month;
    several times a week - several times a day = pray at least several
    times a week; the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be
    taken literally, word for word = Bible literalists; human beings
    [have] developed from earlier species of animals = accept human
    evolution; I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe
    there is a way to find out + I don't believe in God = agnostics and
    other atheists.

    [19]Figure 1
    [20]Figure 2
    [21]Figure 3
    [22]Figure 4
    [23]Figure 5
    [24]Figure 6
    [25]Figure 7
    [26]Figure 8
    [27]Figure 9


    A = Australia
    C = Canada
    D = Denmark
    E = Great Britain
    F = France
    G = Germany
    H = Holland
    I = Ireland
    J = Japan
    L = Switzerland
    N = Norway
    P = Portugal
    R = Austria
    S = Spain
    T = Italy
    U = United States
    W = Sweden
    Z = New Zealand


    Abma, Joyce, Gladys Martinez, William Mosher and Brittany Dawson

    2004 "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive
    Use, and Childbearing, 2002, National Center for Health Statistics."
    Vital Health Statistics 23 (24).

    Applegate, David

    2000 "Anti-evolutionists Open a New Front." Reports of the National
    Center for Science Education 20[1-2]: 6-7.

    Aral, Sevgi and King Holmes.

    1996 "Social and Behavioral Determinants of the Epidemiology of STDs:
    Industrialized and Developing Countries." Pp. 39-76 in Sexually
    Transmitted Diseases. Third Edition. Edited by K. Holmes et al. New
    York: McGraw-Hill.

    Aronson, Raney

    2004 "The Jesus Factor." Frontline, PBS.

    Ayala, Francisco et al.

    1999 Science and Creationism. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Bainbridge, William

    2004 "Religion and Science." Futures 36: 1009-23.

    Barcley, Gordon and Cynthia Tavares

    2003 International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001.


    2003 "A Biblical Worldview has a Radical Effect on a Person's Life."
    Barna Research Online. http://www.barna.org.

    Barro, Robert

    2004 "Spirit of Capitalism: Religion and Economic Development."
    Harvard International Review 25 (4).

    Barro, Robert and Rachel McCleary

    2003 "Religion and Economic Growth Across Countries." American
    Sociological Review 68: 760-81.

    Beeghley, Leonard

    2003 Homicide: A Sociological Explanation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and

    Benson, Peter et al.

    2004 "Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative
    Communities." [29]http://www.americanvalues.org/html/hardwired.html.

    Bishop, George

    1999 "What Americans Really Believe, and Why Faith Isn't as Universal
    as They Think." Free Inquiry 19(3): 38-42.

    Bruce, Steve

    2001 "Christianity in Britain, R. I. P." Sociology of Religion 61:

    Cha, Kwang, Daniel Wirth and Rogerio Lobo

    2001 "Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization
    Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial." Journal of
    Reproductive Medicine 46: 781-87.

    Colson, Charles and Nancy Pearcey

    2001 Developing a Christian Worldview of Science and Evolution.
    Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

    Crews Frederick

    2001 "Saving Us from Darwin. The New York Review of Books 10/4: 24-27
    & 10/18: 51-55.

    Cziko, Gary

    1995 Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second
    Darwinian Revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Darroch, Jacqueline et al.

    2001 "Differences in Teenage Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed
    Countries: The Roles of Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use. Family
    Planning Perspectives 33: 244-50.

    Dawkins, Richard

    1996 The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton.

    1997 "Obscurantism to the Rescue." Quarterly Review of Biology 72:

    Dean, Cornelia

    2005 "Scientists Ask Pope For Clarification On Evolution Stance." The
    New York Times 6/13: A18.

    Dean, Cornelia and Laurie Goodstein

    2005 "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution: Evolution
    Yes, Darwin No." The New York Times 6/9: A1, A11.

    DeLay, Thomas and Addison Dawson

    1999 Congressional Record 6/16, H4366.

    Dennett, Daniel

    1995 Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Desmond, Adrian and James Moore

    1991 Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. New York: W. W.

    Doyle, Rodger

    2000 "The Roots of Homicide." Scientific American 283 (3): 22.

    2002 "Quality of Life." Scientific American 286 (4): 32.

    Eve, Raymond and Francis Harrold

    1991 The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne.

    Family Research Council

    2005 "About FRC". [30]http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC.

    Farrington, David and Patrick Langan

    1998 Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

    Flamm, Bruce

    2004 "The Columbia University `Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud."
    Skeptical Inquirer 28 (5): 25-31.

    2005 "The Bizarre Columbia University `Miracle' Saga Continues."
    Skeptical Inquirer 29 (2): 52-53.

    Forrest, Barbara and Paul Gross.

    2004 Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.
    Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Frank, Thomas

    2004 What's the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of
    America. New York: Metropolitan.

    Gagnon, John, Alain Giami, Staurt Michaels and Patrick de Colomby.

    2001 "A Comparative Study of the Couple in the Social Organization of
    Sexuality in France and the United States." Journal of Sex Research
    38: 24-34.

    Gill, R, C. Hadaway and P. Marler

    1998 "Is Religious Belief Declining in Britain? Journal for the
    Scientific Study of Religion 37: 507-16.

    Goodstein, Laurie

    2004 "Personal and Political, Bush's Faith Blurs Lines." The New York
    Times 10/26: A19.

    Gould, Stephen

    1999 Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New
    York: Ballantine.

    Gove, Philip (ed.)

    1976 Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, MA: C.
    & C. Merriam Co.

    Groeneman, Sid and Gary Tobin

    2004 "The Decline of Religious Identity in the United States."
    Institute for Jewish & Community Research.

    Harris, William et al.

    1999 "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote,
    Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary
    Unit." Archives of Internal Medicine 159: 2273-78.

    Holden, Constance

    1999 "Subjecting Belief to the Scientific Method." Science 284:

    Hummer, Robert, Richard Rogers, Charles Nam and Christopher Ellison.

    1999 "Religious Involvement and U. S. and Adult Mortality." Demography
    36: 273-85.

    Huntington, Samuel

    1996 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order.
    New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Idler, Ellen and Stanislav Kasl

    1992 "Religion, Disability, and the Timing of Death." American Journal
    of Sociology 97: 1052-79.

    Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne Baker

    2000 "Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of
    Traditional Values." American Sociological Review 65: 19-51.

    Isaacson, Walter

    2003 Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York, Simon & Schuster.

    John Paul II

    1995 Evangelium Vitae.

    Johnson, Phillip

    2000 The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism.
    Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.

    Kasman, Laura

    2004 "False Advertising for Faith." The Separationist 9/04: 3.

    Kliesen, Kevin and Frank Schmid

    2004 "Fear of Hell Might Fire Up the Economy." The Regional Economist.

    Koenig, Harold and David Larson

    1998 "Use of Hospital Services, Religious Attendance and Religious
    Affiliation." Southern Medical Journal 91: 925-32.

    Koza, John, Martin Keane and Matthew Streeter

    2003 "Evolving inventions." Scientific American 288 (2): 52-59.

    Krucoff, Mitchell

    2005 "Music, Imagery, Touch and Prayer as Adjuncts to Interventional
    Cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualization of Neotic Trainings
    (Mantra) II Randomized Study." The Lancet 366: 211-17.

    Lane, Les

    2001 "Alternatives to Evolution - Are They Scientific?"

    Lane, Roger

    1997 Murder in America: A History. Columbus: Ohio State University

    Marler, Penny and C. Hadaway

    1999 "Testing the Attendance Gap in a Conservative Church." Sociology
    of Religion 60: 175-86.

    Miller, Kenneth

    1999 Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground
    Between God and Evolution. New York: HarperCollins.

    National School Safety Center

    2005 [33]http://www.nssc1.org/index2.htm.

    Neapoletan, Jerome

    1997 Cross-National Crime. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Numbers, Ronald

    1992 The Creationists. New York: A. A. Knopf.

    Panchaud, Christine, Susheela Singh, Dina Darroch and Jacqueline

    2000 "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among Adolescents in Developed
    Countries." Family Planning Perspectives 32: 24-32.

    Paul, Gregory and Earl Cox

    1996 Beyond Humanity. Rockland, MA: Charles River Media.

    Pearcey, Nancy

    2004 Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity.
    Wheaton, IL: Crossways.


    2002 Global Attitudes Project.

    Putman, Robert

    2000 Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
    New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Reid, T. R.

    2001 "Hollow Halls in Europe's Churches." Washington Post 5/6: A1,

    2004 The United States of Europe. New York: Penguin.

    Rosenfeld, Richard

    2004 "The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline." Scientific American 290
    (2): 82-89.

    Schonborn, Christoph

    2005 "Finding Design in Nature." New York Times 7/7: A27.

    Schroeder, Gerald

    1997 The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical
    Wisdom. NewYork: Broadway.

    Scott, Eugenie

    1999 "The Creation/Evolution Continuum." Reports of the National
    Center for Science Education 19 (4): 16, 17, 21.

    Shanks, Niall

    2004 God, the Devil and Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Singh, Sushella and Jacqueline Darroch

    2000 "Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing: Levels and Trends in
    Developed Countries." Family Planning Perspectives 32: 14-23.

    Sommerville, C.

    2002 "Stark's Age of Faith Argument and the Secularization of Things:
    A Commentary." Sociology of Religion 63: 361-72.

    Stark, Rodney and William Bainbridge

    1996 Religion, Deviance and Social Control. New York: Routledge.

    Stepp, Laura

    2004 "An Inspired Strategy." Washington Post 3/21: D1, D6.

    UN Development Programme

    2000 Human Development Report 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    2004 Human Development Report 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


    2001 "Suicide Prevention."

    Wise, Donald

    1998 "Creationism's Geologic Time Scale." American Scientist

    Young, Matt and Taner Edis (eds.)

    2004 Why Intelligent Design Fails. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University


    5. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html#figures
   28. http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf
   29. http://www.americanvalues.org/html/hardwired.html
   30. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC
   31. http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/fear_of_hell.html
   32. http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/references.html
   33. http://www.nssc1.org/index2.htm

More information about the paleopsych mailing list