Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with
Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous
Democracies
A First Look
Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland
Introduction
[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> 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> 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. DeLay 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> Faith-based
charities and education are promoted by the Bush
administration<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 developed 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 (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 developed 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 developed 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 developed 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,<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 examination.
Results
[13] Among the
developed 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
developed democracies.
[14] Correlations
between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and
worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (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 developed 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
developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide
rates drop to historical lows (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 developed 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 developed 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 (Figure
3). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and
juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute
belief, and even prayer (Figure
4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise
(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.<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 developed democracies (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 (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.
(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 developed
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 (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.).
Discussion
[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 developed 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 markedly.
[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 (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 developed
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 developed 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
developed 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.
Conclusion
[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 developed 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 (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.
Figure
1
Figure
2
Figure
3
Figure
4
Figure
5
Figure
6
Figure
7
Figure
8
Figure
9
Legend
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
Bibliography
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
Education20[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.http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf.
Barna
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 Littlefield.
Benson,
Peter et al.
2004 “Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific
Case for Authoritative Communities.”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: 191-203.
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:
397-99.
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. Norton.
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”. 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. http://www.Jewishresearch.org/PDFs/religion.pdf.
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: 1257-58.
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.http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/fear_of_hell.html.
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?”http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/references.html.
Lane,
Roger
1997 Murder in America: A
History. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
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 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
Darroch
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.
PEW
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, A22.
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.
WHO
2001 “Suicide Prevention.” http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/
country_reports/en/index.html.
Wise,
Donald
1998 “Creationism’s Geologic Time
Scale.” American Scientist 86:160-73.
Young,
Matt and Taner Edis (eds.)
2004 Why Intelligent Design
Fails. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.