Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

IQ and ID

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Uncommon Descent member AussieID brought up the point in my previous article that belief in God tends to fall off with increasing IQ. I countered with the point that the very highest IQs tend to come back around, not full circle to a belief in a personal God (such as the God of Abraham), but to a belief in a designed universe which is more or less categorized as “deism”. I offered examples of famous high IQ deists such as Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, and even Antony Flew.

Curious, and uncertain how strong the correlation is between high genius and deism, I googled around a bit and stumbled upon Christopher Michael Langan who has been billed by the media, including 20/20, as the smartest man in America with a measured IQ of 195. His life is both surprising and fascinating in many ways.

However, the biggest surprise of all was that Mr. Langan is an IDist!

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society which promotes intelligent design, and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society’s online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002. Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID’s Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design, edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

“I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.”

Langan has said he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he “can’t afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma.” He calls himself “a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere.”

Interesting video interview here. Watch all three segments. I wasn’t bothered by any of it, found much of it amusing, but I suspect it will stir up a lot of animosity on both sides of the “culture war” (which likely means he’s on the right track). Try to keep in mind this guy is an ISCID fellow along with Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Guiellermo Gonzalez, Forrest Mims, Jay Richards, Phil Skell, Rick Sternberg, and many others in the ID movement.

Comments
I don't give a damn about IQ. I'll choose Mother Teresa over Chris Langan any day. Chris squandered his talents and Teresa did not. I believe that there is some ancient wisdom on this subject, called the parable of the talents.GilDodgen
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Joel, SATs (and IQ) correlate very well with learning ability, and material success in life. Of course IQ is not synonymous with character or value in the eyes of God, but it is not synonymous with "hard work" either. It cannot be discounted when it comes to matters involving abstract thinking or academics.tribune7
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
re: Daniel King @ #6 I am!Charlie
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Dave, Your explanation of the IQ test did little to validate it. It still falls under the third problem I listed (inability to show original thought). If the IQ test is based on the SAT test, then a well trained idiot that has learned how to beat tests can still post a high IQ. Now this might prove that he is knowledgeable and intelligent (if intelligence expels the necessity of original thought), but it shows he lacks wisdom and the ability to think for himself (not spout out pre-learned facts). The end point being - debating over which side has the highest average IQ really doesn't accomplish much considering the test shows little in the way of original thought.Joel Borofsky
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Sorry, previous comment had the link wrong. Here it is corrected.Jaz
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Lawrence Auster addresses Richard Lynn's study here.
My point is that in an age in which it is demanded and expected that people in the higher levels of society be irreligious, or, at least, that they not demonstrate conspicuous religiosity, or that their religion take the approved form of liberal religiosity, which is really religion without God, it follows that since the people in higher levels of society will naturally have higher IQs, the higher IQ people will be less religious.
and
For example, the authors don't ask, if such a study were done in, say, the 13th or the 17th century, what would be the results? Of course the IQ elite in the 13th century, instead of being secular academics and rationalistic, reductive believers in the ideology of scientism, as today's elite is, were churchmen and believers in God.
Jaz
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
By the way, anyone who watched the videos of Langan would know that he said "IQ scores are no longer politically correct" in explaining why the Guiness Book of World Records no longer has an IQ category. He's right. Look at all the hostility to using it as a metric for intelligence in the comments here. What people usually don't know is there's almost a perfect correlation between SAT scores and IQ test scores so, while IQ tests are "politically incorrect" we have to heed my old pal William Shakespeare again about roses by any other name smelling as sweet - SAT scores are far from politically incorrect and they are in practice quite accurate IQ tests as well as scholastic aptitude tests. As to the notion that hard work can substitute for high IQ - true up to a certain point but if anyone with an IQ of 100 thinks they will live long enough to accomplish all the things that Leonardo Da Vinci (IQ estimated at 200+) accomplished in his 61 years of life - they're dreaming unless they plan on living to be about 10,000 years old. Time and effort can make up for smaller differences in IQ but it can't close huge gaps. Now a person with a very, very high IQ can be so lazy and unmotivated (witness Langan who was content for 20 years working construction by day and bouncer in a bar at night) that they won't get anything noteworthy done. So a high IQ person can mimic a moron in productive output but a moron can't mimic a highly motivated, high IQ person. That's just the harsh, politically incorrect reality of it all. People have different skills and talents. Just remember it takes all kinds of people to make the world go around and no one is born with more right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than anyone else - which is something that Langan heartily agrees with as he says over and over he's no better or more deserving than anyone else.DaveScot
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Joel IQ for adults is done by what's called "deviation IQ" as opposed to children which is "ratio IQ". Ratio IQ is mental age/physical age. Thus 6 year old kid who scores as well as an average 12-year old on any given test has an IQ of 200. For an adult the test score (it's often the SAT test which is used these days for IQs below about 175) is compared to other adult scores on the same test and the deviation from the average score is translated into an IQ score. The SAT can't measure higher than a certain level because people who are that smart or smarter get perfect scores on it! Specially designed tests must be administered to very, very high IQ people. But if you don't think that SAT scores mean very much then you have another think coming, of course. I suspect you simply didn't know that SAT scores are the usual method used to determine adult IQs since it doesn't require taking a specialized IQ test and the correlation of SAT score to specifically designed IQ test is very high.DaveScot
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
“We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can almost be as stupid as a cabbage as long as you doubt.” Dallas Willard While in college, I had the opportunity to participate in a discussion with Francis A. Schaeffer, the late Christian apologist. One of my fellow students asked him, "Why is it that intelligent people don't believe. He responded by saying, "… for the same reason that stupid people don't believe, the simply do not want to believe". I mentioned Willard's quote in a recent post and personally find this to be very accurate.toc
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Well, is it Christopher L., Christopher H. or Marilyn? Who has the world's highest IQ? Information on Marilyn vos Savant can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant Information on Christopher Harding can be found at http://megasociety.org/noesis/169.htmvjtorley
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
I'm not sure he's right about that.Daniel King
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
There are probably both some atheists and theists on either side of the scale. If anyone rally cares about such a statistical relationship, why look at individuals when the statistics are accepted? Either you don't care about such a relationship or you question the methods, then you bring examples. Or you believe the statistics have something important to say, then single examples don't change anything. In general, it is always wise to keep the old rule in mind that statistical correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation...brembs
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell
One of my favorite quotes.scordova
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
I don't think the IQ argument on either side merits much of an argument. In the extremely early days of Christianity the Romans attempted to paint Christianity as something that only "old widows, idiots, and orphans" believe. Likewise, in the modern day Theism is viewed in the same way (among those as the same ilk as Dawkins). This betrays four things. The first is that the accuser doesn't understand history, as some of the greatest intellectual heavyweights in history have also been theists. Secondly, that in serious philosophical circles it is now passe to consider theists "irrational" (thanks to Plantinga). Third, it shows an overwhelming trust in an IQ test that can be, at best suspicious of evaluating actual intelligence (e.g. capability of original thought, not just repeating information, etc). Fourth, and final, it shows the accuser hasn't taken into account that people with higher IQ's have often gone through more education and that education departments certainly don't teach without bias in one direction or the other. For me, the whole IQ argument has always been a bit shady as an IQ isn't really an adequate measure of knowledge and intelligence.Joel Borofsky
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
I don't think Einstein was a deist. http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/06/06/guest-post-tom-levenson-on-einstein-religion-and-jewishness/ That sounds fairly conclusive.CrowsSupporter
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Perhaps the correlation is pride, not IQ. With our fallen nature, God given gifts can be abused or create a prideful sense of imagined self sufficiency or importance apart from Him.butifnot
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply