IQ by religion

[MaxPC]

Screen-Shot-2023-07-02-at-12.04.51-AM.png
Source: https://www.unz.com/isteve/iq-by-religion-2/
"The horizontal axis is IQ, with atheist moms averaging 109, followed by Jewish moms at 108. The vertical axis is the polygenic score for educational attainment."

I suppose that most of this meets our expectations: Jews are better than Unitarians who are better than Mainline Protestants who are better than Catholics who are better than Muslims who are better than Evangelical Protestants. I was surprised by the good results for Mormons /how come?) And of course I would have liked to see results for Mennonites.3

There are many types of "IQ" and a diversified instruments to measure the variety of IQ sets that exist: at least for now. Man-made measures are unable to predict the capacity for growth either. Then there is the problem of WHO are they measuring in each group (nation, ethnicity)? WHAT instrument was used and which control group was it normed upon?

The Creator of all people, who gave each individual a unique intellectual, socio-emotional, physical and philosophical capacity for maturity, sees all as worthy to be saved by His Son's Sacrifice. He can use leaders with faults and He can use children innocent of the world's ways.

[Franklin]

Personally, I have no expectations regarding which of these groups are 'better than' others in IQ. IQ is man's evaluation of how intelligent people are and sadly many with high intelligence according to man often have trouble with simple faith and trust in Jesus. What is more important than IQ is wisdom. James says wisdom is what we should seek after and God will give it to those who ask.

Why are atheists the group with the highest IQ? No one here tried to answer this. Assuming that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Bible, why do the highest IQ people reject it? My answer is that the issue is not the Bible itself, but rather interpretations of the Bible. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways. And an interpretation that appeals to average people won't appeal to high-IQ people, and an interpretation that appeals to high-IQ people won't appeal to average people. As fewer high-IQ people chose religion as their focus, high-IQ Bible interpretations became less common. So now all that are available are interpretations suited for average people, and naturally high-IQ people reject them and become atheists. This wasn't the case in the past, so high-IQ people like Isaac Newton were religious Christians.

Those who place high IQ as being important in knowing God lack wisdom.

High IQ helps with having a deeper understanding of anything including God. So I disagree. And I think the terrible misinterpretations of the Bible that have become popular in the last 150 years are the result of the lack of high-IQ people involved in religion.

[RZehr]

The Atheists are probably just non-observant Jews - explaining why the two groups rank similar.

[Soloist]

The Atheists are probably just non-observant Jews - explaining why the two groups rank similar.

I think the test is flawed. Truly intelligent people would recognize the need for something to have created what is around them. The natural structures such as DNA simply express a profound example of a master programmer.

We code in 1s and 0s and think it’s impressive. We invented trinary coding and decided it was too hard to code in. God? I think DNA speaks for itself.

[Franklin]

I think the test is flawed. Truly intelligent people would recognize the need for something to have created what is around them. The natural structures such as DNA simply express a profound example of a master programmer.

We code in 1s and 0s and think it’s impressive. We invented trinary coding and decided it was too hard to code in. God? I think DNA speaks for itself.

Sorry but no. Self-organizing systems work. See this book. I was raised atheist and chose to believe in God for other reasons.

[Ken]

The Atheists are probably just non-observant Jews - explaining why the two groups rank similar.

I think the test is flawed. Truly intelligent people would recognize the need for something to have created what is around them. The natural structures such as DNA simply express a profound example of a master programmer.

We code in 1s and 0s and think it’s impressive. We invented trinary coding and decided it was too hard to code in. God? I think DNA speaks for itself.

DNA only has 4 nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) which combine in groups of three to form 64 different possible codons or 3-letter words (4 x 4 x 4 = 64). The 64 possible codons code to 20 different amino acids along with start/stop codes so there are lots of duplicates. The DNA of all life on earth follows that same 64-codon pattern and uses the same 20 amino acids. All DNA is simply long strands of 3-letter words using the same 4 letters in different combinations.

It isn't unfathomably complicated. Ordinary 9th grade biology students learn to code and de-code DNA sequences using simple codon charts.

If you want to believe this is all proof of intelligent design and God's creation then fine. Lots of people do and you are in good company. But the nature or complexity of DNA doesn't lead you inexorably to that conclusion.

[Franklin]

Out of a group of 100 randomly chosen people, 2 will be 130 or over.

Out of a group of 1,000 randomly chosen people, 1 will be 145 or over. (IQ testing at ranges that high is not very exact and starts to have what is called “unreliability”; a WISC doesn’t go past 155 and a Stanford-Binet doesn’t go past 160, and there is very little data to even study past 145 to make any confident assertions.)

Someone who is in the top 0.1% is not going to be able to find a classroom of peers and would in fact benefit from being in a mainstream classroom around average people, because that’s what the rest of their life is going to seem like. I’m not sure why you would think they would be “miserable”. The main thing they can learn in a classroom is how to socialise well with average people.

I completely disagree based on my experience. I was tested twice as a child, once because all children in my school were tested, and again to confirm my score. I had a perfect score on both tests, so I am not in the normal range. And I knew 2 other people whose intelligence was like mine. Of the 2 others, one went insane and the other killed himself. I survived but I mostly hate humanity. There are a number factors involved in this result, but being forced to socialize with average people was certainly one of them. My parents grew up in Hungary where they had one school in the country for the smartest people. This meant that my parents socialized with people they could better relate to. Partly as a result, they never hated humanity as I do.

Another part of the issue is that modern culture is increasingly intolerant. High-IQ people are different from average people, and whether average people tolerate high-IQ people depends on the tolerance of the culture. Since modern culture has become extremely intolerant, people today hate intelligent people. So my hatred of humanity is mutual, they hate me too.

[Soloist]

DNA only has 4 nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) which combine in groups of three to form 64 different possible codons or 3-letter words (4 x 4 x 4 = 64). The 64 possible codons code to 20 different amino acids along with start/stop codes so there are lots of duplicates. The DNA of all life on earth follows that same 64-codon pattern and uses the same 20 amino acids.

It isn't unfathomably complicated. Ordinary 9th grade biology students learn to code and de-code DNA sequences using simple codon charts.

If you want to believe this is all proof of intelligent design and God's creation then fine. Lots of people do and you are in good company. But the nature or complexity of DNA doesn't lead you inexorably to that conclusion.

Yeah but no one would ever argue a vastly less complex computer came about by chance. Also those 9th graders were not writing the language and coding every living thing.
Microsoft Windows is a bloated piece of junk that took many programmers years to make and no one would ever make the mistake that it came by chance. The smallest organism has more data then the entire windows program.
Show me any human who has wrote from scratch an entire DNA code and then had it be used. We can mix and match, splice here and there, even write small sections but we cannot do what I said. Even if we could, that just speaks to the need of a creator.
99% of the programs we have in America are based on 2 bit code consisting of variations of 1 and 0. Clearly full functionality isn’t based on just a few lines but the entirety of the program.
It used to be argued that there was junk DNA… yeah.

[Soloist]

Sorry but no. Self-organizing systems work. See this book. I was raised atheist and chose to believe in God for other reasons.

I’ll have to see what the book is later, I can’t see it on my phone.
Self organizing systems range from fat molecules to other things. Did you ever read the book I recommended? I can send it to you if you would read it.

[Ken]

DNA only has 4 nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) which combine in groups of three to form 64 different possible codons or 3-letter words (4 x 4 x 4 = 64). The 64 possible codons code to 20 different amino acids along with start/stop codes so there are lots of duplicates. The DNA of all life on earth follows that same 64-codon pattern and uses the same 20 amino acids.

It isn't unfathomably complicated. Ordinary 9th grade biology students learn to code and de-code DNA sequences using simple codon charts.

If you want to believe this is all proof of intelligent design and God's creation then fine. Lots of people do and you are in good company. But the nature or complexity of DNA doesn't lead you inexorably to that conclusion.

Yeah but no one would ever argue a vastly less complex computer came about by chance. Also those 9th graders were not writing the language and coding every living thing.
Microsoft Windows is a bloated piece of junk that took many programmers years to make and no one would ever make the mistake that it came by chance. The smallest organism has more data then the entire windows program.
Show me any human who has wrote from scratch an entire DNA code and then had it be used. We can mix and match, splice here and there, even write small sections but we cannot do what I said. Even if we could, that just speaks to the need of a creator.
99% of the programs we have in America are based on 2 bit code consisting of variations of 1 and 0. Clearly full functionality isn’t based on just a few lines but the entirety of the program.
It used to be argued that there was junk DNA… yeah.

No biologist would argue that your DNA genome came about by chance either.

They would suggest that your genome steadily grew more complex through the process of natural selection acting on enormous populations over eons and eons of time. In other words, nature is running an endless selective breeding program simultaneously on all the trillions of organisms on earth across billions of years of time.