Are Christians or Creationists Less Intelligent?

Once in a while, liberal professors publish studies that suggest people who are religious or believe in creation (or simply believe in God) are less intelligent and less educated. Conversely, people who are more intelligent or better educated are more likely to be atheists and believe in evolution. Such studies are usually trumpeted with an “in your face” flourish and are accompanied by an endless litany of “here's proof that Christians/creationists are stupid” claims. Needless to say, this has been a constant source of frustration for me but not for the reason you might think. I'm frustrated that, while I'm willing to discuss these studies, my opponents who cite them often don't understand the issue beyond the headline of the article they are citing.

One commonly cited study states, “Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations” [2008]. From the study, we find the following statistics: “At this interview they [young adults] were asked: “To what extent are you a religious person?” The responses were coded “not religious at all”, “slightly religious”, “moderately religious”, and “very religious”. The results showed that the “not religious at all” group had the highest IQ (103.09), followed in descending order by the other three groups (IQs = 99.34, 98.28, 97.14).”

Here are some other statistics published by the reputable group, Gallup. In a 2010 survey, 47% of people with only a high school education or less believe “God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years.” Only 22% of people with a postgraduate degree believed the same thing.

First, in spite of what critics say about me, I tend to take scientific research at face value. Of course, I may not always agree with the conclusions but the data is what it is. If Gallup conducted its survey appropriately, then people with more education are more likely to believe in evolution. If the 2008 study shows a slightly higher intelligence among people who claim to have “no religion at all,” then so be it. The first question I would ask is “why?” It's easy to arrive at a statistic. For example, I might survey 1,000 US families and discover that 99% of kids born to English speaking parents also speak English themselves. Therefore, speaking English is obviously an inherited trait! You can see how that doesn't quite work. Even though my statistic might be accurate, I'm still wrong with the “why” part. Likewise, the statistics surrounding intelligence and faith might be accurate but they don't establish a definitive “why?”

Why then might people who are better educated tend to believe in evolution? One very obvious reason is that most colleges teach evolution. This is kind of a, “duh!” solution. Also considering that many, practicing scientists hold postgraduate degrees, we can be certain these people were told that an understanding of evolution was essential to their discipline. It's no wonder then that people with advanced degrees tend to believe evolution is true. And consider this: how many people who graduate from, say, Liberty University believe in creation? I would predict it's much higher than the percentage of people believing in creation who graduated from secular colleges.

But what about the idea that atheists tend to be more intelligent than believers? First, the study above didn't exactly examine the IQ of atheists but rather of people who identified themselves as “not religious.” These aren't the same things. Even so, the difference of 103 for “not religious” compared to 97 for “very religious” doesn't alarm me. I haven't put a pencil to it but, from what I remember from my business stats class in college, I suspect it's less than one standard deviation from mean (100). Given also that the Gallup poll shows only 7% of the population doesn't believe in God, the sampling of atheists might be too small to be representative of the whole. Besides, the study itself shows that IQ is not an absolute indicator anyway. According to the Appendix A, the average IQ in the US is 98 where 10.5% of people do not believe in God. In the Czech Republic, 61% of the people don't believe in God yet their average IQ is the same as ours. In China, 12% of the population say there's no God (only slightly higher than our 10.5%) yet their average IQ is 105. Atheism is much higher in Cuba (40%) yet their average IQ (85) is markedly less than ours.

There's another interesting stat from the Gallup survey that I seldom hear cited. The percentage of postgraduates who believe “humans evolved, God had no part in the process” is only slightly higher than postgraduates who believe in special creation (25% v. 22%). 49% of postgraduates believe “humans evolved, God guided process.” So, postgraduates are far more likely to believe in some type of creation (special creation or theistic evolution) than believe in atheistic evolution.

Concerning a belief in God, another Gallup poll says that 92% of people with a high school education or less believe in God. Of those with a postgraduate degree, almost as many (87%) said they also believe in God.  Only 7% of the general population does not believe in God (with 1% having no opinion). Therefore, even the most educated people are far more likely to believe in God than be atheists.  Atheism can at best be described as a fringe belief.

In comparing intelligence and religion, there are a lot of other factors at work.  For example, I suspect that intelligent people are also more likely to go to college and thus become indoctrinated in evolution and liberal ideology.  Wouldn't that skew the stats toward higher intelligence among atheists?  Also, there's possibly an increased skepticism that also comes with higher intelligence meaning that more intelligent people are also more likely to doubt anything supernatural. Finally, there may be a vanity thing going on where intelligent people simply put more faith in human understanding than dependency on any god.

In conclusion, there are a few logical fallacies involved in raising arguments like this but it is sufficient to say that it's a classic example of dicto simpliciter (sweeping generalization). Just to be clear, I haven't cited these statistics in order to show that atheism isn't true on the grounds that it's a fringe philosophy. Rather, I raise them to rebut the sweeping generalization that any person who believes in God or creation is necessarily less intelligent and less educated. I would say that people who make that claim are, in reality, demonstrating their own ignorance!

It's Now A Crime to Tease Someone

I was a little surprised to hear the verdict in the “webcam spying” case. Actually, I wasn't surprised; it's more like concerned. According to Philly.com, “Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy and bias intimidation Friday in a webcam spying case that focused national attention on the harassment of gay teenagers.” [bold added]  It's the “bias intimidation” part that really scares me.

From what I understand about the case, the 20-year-old defendant had witnessed, via his webcam, his gay roommate kissing another man. He tweeted about it and jokingly said he would invite others to view the next encounter. In spite of some early rumors surrounding the case, no videos of the act were made and certainly nothing was posted on YouTube. The gay roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide, allegedly out of humiliation over the incident.

From the article, a gay-activist attorney said of the verdict, “The verdict today demonstrates that the jurors understood that bias crimes do not require physical weapons like a knife in one's hands.” Really? I don't think the jurors understood very much at all. The article cites one law professor as saying, “The jury appeared to find that Ravi's intentions were not out of hatred or bias but the jurors believed Tyler Clementi perceived them as such.”

Let's set aside the “invasion of privacy” charge for a moment. What exactly is bias intimidation? From this verdict, it doesn't need to be a threat or even need to be intended to intimidate. It simply has to be perceived as intimidating. Remember, we're not talking about the KKK burning a cross in the front yard of a black family. In a case like that, there is overt intimidation and the possibility of violence is very real. In this case, no one threatened the gay student. They merely teased him. More precisely, they didn't even tease him – some people joked about him online. There was never any threat of violence. The “victim” wasn't scared; he was humiliated.

Is this really the precedent we want to set? If you make a joke about someone – never intending to harm him – you could still go to jail? Are gay people so thin skinned that we need to arrest people who are perceived as “insensitive”?

Let's apply this same standard to another demographic. Should we arrest people who make jokes about blacks? Some liberals would say yes so that doesn't work. Let me think... what other group might we use? What about... oh, I don't know... let's say, Christians. If someone makes insensitive remarks about Christians, is it a hate crime?

Let's suppose for a moment, that some atheist blogger wrote a scathing piece about Ken Ham and said hateful things like, “Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.”

Oh, wait a minute, PZ Myers did write that about Ken Ham on his blog. So, is this “bias intimidation”? Isn't Ken Ham being ridiculed because of his religious beliefs? Myers may not be intending to intimidate Ham but, according to this new standard, there need not be any threat of violence. Mr. Ham only needs to feel humiliated. If Mr. Ham, in a fit of depression and humiliation, should jump off the Brent Spence bridge, PZ Myers would probably cheer. No liberal would think for a minute that Myers should face 10 years in jail for his blatant assault on Ham's religious beliefs.

Isn't a person's religious views protected from hate speech or is protection only reserved for a person's sexual orientation? For the record, though, I believe the whole notion of “hate speech” or “hate crimes” is misguided. We already have laws protecting people against violence. What need is there to protect them against ridicule? Sticks and stones, as they say. If I cried “hate speech” every time someone tried to shame me for my religious beliefs, half the cyber-world would be under arrest.

Once again there is a glaring, double-standard in the liberals' application of “rights.” They're not interested in equal treatment of everyone. Tease a gay, go to jail. Ridicule a Christian day after day for years, win the adoration of millions of liberals everywhere. Have I mentioned before that liberals are hypocrites?

What's Not Being Said About Rush Limbaugh's Comments

We've all heard about Rush's remarks concerning law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before congress. We've all heard about Obama's call to Ms. Fluke, offering his condolences for Rush's remarks. We've all heard Nancy Pelosi's seeming outrage and her comment that Rush should be “advertiseless.” We've all heard Sean Hannity and other conservatives correctly identify the double standard of Democrats who condemn Rush's remarks but have no comment about the hateful things liberals say about conservative women. Well, here's something you probably haven't heard:

I'm a firm believer in free speech. Rush's remarks, though they may be offensive, are his opinions and he has the liberty to speak them. Of course, since Rush broadcasts over publicly licensed radio signals, there are certain words he's not allowed to use. Beyond that, he can speak his mind no matter how extreme his views may be.

Like Rush, Bill Maher is free to speak his mind. Unlike Rush, however, Bill Maher broadcasts over cable television so he can even use 4-letter words which Rush can't (and he uses them frequently). Compared to Maher's comments about women, Rush's use of words like “slut” and “prostitute” are somewhat tame. Even so, Rush Limbaugh's and Bill Maher's comments are both protected by the First Amendment.

Not only are Rush and Bill free to speak their views, but we who listen to them are also free to condemn them. Some people have called for a boycott of Rush. Some people are canceling their HBO subscriptions because of Bill. The people who are upset with Rush or Bill and are reaching out to sponsors are simply exercising their free speech. When someone like Rush or Bill speaks his mind, he might persuade or repulse others. Listeners will either affirm or condemn their remarks. This is the marketplace of ideas. This is liberty.

What I see wrong in this whole affair is the condemnation of Rush made by elected, public officials. The First Amendment specifically protects the political speech of private individuals from the government! If President Obama uses the bully-pulpit of his office to shame Rush, he is using the power of the Presidency to infringe on the Rush's free speech. When Nancy Pelosi suggests that advertisers should drop Rush, she too is infringing on his First Amendment rights.

The left in notorious for their war on liberty. They don't care that Rush has free speech; they want to silence him. Neither do they care that their radical views on contraception (which inspired Rush's comments) violates people's freedom of religion. And while we're at it, what about their continuous maligning of FOX News? Have they noticed the First Amendment also protects the freedom of the press?

And let's be clear about something: these liberals aren't really offended by Rush's remarks; we know this because they say not one word about Maher's much worse misogynistic remarks. They are specifically interested in squelching Rush's political speech.

So let's sum up: private individuals are free to make offensive remarks. Other private individuals are free to embrace or reject those remarks. We can call on other people to boycott talk shows when the host says something we don't like. We can even boycott companies that decide to drop advertising on talk shows that we do like. We can say and do all these things and elected officials should not be able to use the sway of their office to influence our private discourse because our rights are protected by the First Amendment.

They do use their political sway, though. Fortunately, I have a blog and intend to exercise my right to speak out about the shameful tactics of these enemies of liberty.

Oil and Obama's Bad Math

My economics teacher in college once said, “The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.” I'm fairly sure he was quoting someone else but the point was well made and I've used the same quote many times myself. Lately, however, I sometimes I wonder if liberals count on people being bad in math when they spout their rhetoric. Democrats use figures that are so misleading they have to be relying on their audience not being sophisticated enough to figure it out. Alternatively, maybe they themselves don't understand the bad math and are simply repeating an argument they don't understand.

Last week, Obama made the following remarks in a speech at the Daimler Truck Manufacturing Plant in Mt. Holly, NC:

“As a country that has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses 20 percent of the world's oil -- I'm going to repeat that -- we've got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we're doing to increase oil production, we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth.”

He has since quoted the same statistic many times in various venues. Occasionally, he includes ridicule of Sarah Palin's slogan, “Drill, baby, drill” from the last Presidential election and each time he repeats the lie, he is usually met with frenzied approval. The obvious, intended impression is that our consumption far outstrips the puny amount of oil we have so drilling more won't decrease our dependence on foreign supplies.

Here's the truth: According to an extensive geological survey conducted in 2000, there are approximately 3 trillion barrels of oil underground all around the world. If President Obama is correct that 2% of that is located in the US, that means there are 60,000,000,000 (60 billion) barrels of oil that is ours for the drilling.

The President also said the US consumes 20% of all the oil produced each year. In 2009, the US oil consumption was just under 19,000 barrels of oil per day (source). Now, I'm not a math wizard but I do have a calculator on my computer. At our current rate of consumption, the US has enough oil underground to meet our demand for the next 8,600 years!! Even if we were to double or triple our consumption of oil, we shouldn't have to worry about running out. There's plenty.

Here's another thing I learned in economics, where there is a greater supply of something, prices go down. If we increase oil production here, prices will drop. I guarantee it. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem concerned with increased domestic oil production. No doubt this is due to his affinities toward environmentalism. His strategy thus far to reduce our dependence on foreign oil seems to be 1) don't drill in Alaska, 2) ban off shore drilling, 3) kill the Keystone pipeline from Canada, and 4) suck up to oil producing despots in the Middle East. The result of his 4 pronged approach is that gas prices have doubled during his term in office.

Now, I don't want to over simply this. Even though there's a lot of oil in the ground, there's a lot involved with getting it out of ground and getting it refined. That costs money and companies have to be sure there will be a profit in it for them before spending billions of dollars. They need to be certain of the President's and Congress's commitment to a several-years-long undertaking.

Obama claims to not want higher gas prices, but every move he has made during his presidency seems geared toward doing just that. We feel the effect of his failed (successful?) strategy in our wallets every time we gas up.