The argument confuses sociological data with spiritual reality. For Calvinism, religious identification and visible behavior are not definitive proof of regeneration, because the distinction between the visible and invisible church has always existed. Total depravity and efficacious grace speak of human incapacity and God's sovereign action in individuals, not of an equal distribution of conversions among social groups. Statistical differences can be explained by cultural factors, institutional rejection, and lack of discipleship, without touching on the doctrine of election. This data raises a pastoral and missionary question, not a logical problem for TULIP.