God is bad for you

[Adrian II]

I'm convinced that if you control for socio-economical status, most of these effects would disappear.

Well, maybe you guys should all read the article a little better. The author sets out to check the claim made by theists 'that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society'. He concludes that this claim must be refuted on the grounds of all the social indicators mentioned. This process of checking a theory to see if it stands up to facts is known in science as falsification. The theists' claim has been falsified:

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 author also concludes that the surprisingly high correlation between degree of theistic belief (which is not the same as religion, witness the case of Japan that he expressly mentions) and said social indicators warrants further research:

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?

Nowhere does the author say that religion 'causes' social misery.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, either things have RADICALLY changed since I went to school, or you European friends of mine are focusing on a red herring with this creationism business. Do people believe in it? Sure, but just because you can find a school district here and there that proposes offering it alongside creationism does not mean that the VAST majority of Americans, Christians and otherwise don't hold evolution as the prevalent theory explaining current biodiversity. Criminy, should I go find some backwater trend in the Netherlands and offer it as evidence that you're all a bunch of whackos?

[Adrian II]

Sure, but just because you can find a school district here and there that proposes offering it alongside creationism does not mean that the VAST majority of Americans, Christians and otherwise don't hold evolution as the prevalent theory explaining current biodiversity.

The article confirms something else I have been thinking for quite some time, i.e. that the movement to replace the teaching of evolution by that of creationism or intelligent design is in fact a political movement. It is not about religion or science, it is about power.

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). The person most responsible for politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan, 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”. 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).

[Don Corleone]

If you really think that the evangelical movement in America today is guided by the nascent hand of William Jennings Bryant and his arguments in the Scopes monkey trial, you don't know us as well as you think you do.

[Adrian II]

If you really think that the evangelical movement in America today is guided by the nascent hand of William Jennings Bryant and his arguments in the Scopes monkey trial, you don't know us as well as you think you do.

You misquote the author; he writes that Jennings Bryant was the one who contributed most to politicising the creationism drive. The Scopes trial was a major landmark.

[Don Corleone]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

[Adrian II]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

Here is what the author states about him: '[W.J.B] 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”.'

I hear echo's of that view all the time when reading or listening to proponents of the creationism drive. For instance in the latest thread about theThe March of the Penguins, a leading Christian promotor of the movie was quoted as saying that it 'really contains very little violence, jut like nature itself'. In other words: only the 'Darwinists' hold the view that nature is all about survival and inter-species violence, whereas nature is in reality quite peaceful.

[Ironside]

It was in 1925! How can one claim that the recent blurring of the lines between Church & state by the religious right stems from this? Sorry, I'm just not following...

Was W.J.B operating mostly in Chicago? I'm wondering because I've red that the modern Christian fundamentalism (as in literarly interpreting the Bible: think Navaros-style) was started there about 1920-1930.
And the issue about creationism certainly seems to been created from that movement at some point.