Could creationists be on the 'dumb' list?

[Mark Buchanan]

Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.

Mark

[Kalkidas]

Do you brush your teeth?

Hitler also brushed his teeth.

Therefore, you're a Nazi.

[Friar Broccoli]

Link to original study:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.full

It was not pay walled when I went there. I have a copy of the pdf.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:21:25 -0500, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <jgh8aa$ur5$2...@dont-email.me>):

And here we have _proof_ that creationists are on the 'dumb' list. There
wasn't much doubt, but confirmation is helpful. Thanks ever so much, m'man.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 3, 8:46 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-pre...

>
> Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>
> Mark

No, creationists cannot be on the dumb list. The university trained
evolutionists have commonly expressed their opinion that evolution is
the majority view and yet fail to deal with the contradictions and
failures of evolutionary thought.

[Tim Norfolk]

The same ones that you don't appear able to elucidate?

[Richard Harter]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:46:28 -0800 (PST), Mark Buchanan
<marklynn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

Ah ha. Science in the best tradition of Jensen.

[Eric Root]

On Feb 5, 1:33 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:

Actually, the problems that creationists bring up _have_ been dealt
with; you're only disagreeing because you either aren't very smart, or
are lying. Please take that as constructive criticism and make some
changes in yourself.

Eric Root

[Mark Buchanan]

On Feb 3, 11:46 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-pre...

>
> Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>
> Mark

Just to add some more food for thought - or fuel to this little fire -
here is some stuff on religion and racism:

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/20/why-religion-can-lead-to-racism/

Found out about this from 'The Anointed' by Stephens & Giberson - p.
254.

Mark

[Roger Shrubber]

On Feb 4, 2:46 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-pre...

>
> Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>
> Mark

QUOTE FTL: Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative
ideologies?
Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it
easier to
comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. END QUOTE

Sounds like a common goal of science. The contrast would apparently be
Astrology
and crystal power which, to me at least, seem far less structured and
ordered than
the world as I see it. I guess that's why those people who believe in
Astrology
and crystal power are typically liberals and only pay attention to
science that
agrees with their preconceptions, like that humans are destroying the
planet.

[Ray Martinez]

Not only that they fail to produce any evidence whatsoever supporting
their outlandish claims.

We are all supposed to believe that the wonders of nature assembled
itself incrementally, and that it all started with one lucky act
billions of years ago (a DNA replication engine materialized out of
inanimate matter). The claim of abiogenesis is the invulnerable
evidence disproving its likelihood. One act means it is not a natural
process, but a supernatural one. Yet evolution rejects the
supernatural (that's why the concept of evolution is accepted:
Creationism is assumed absurd).

This is why thinking people reject evolution (like Biblearcheology
said: its the contradictions) .

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Prof Weird]

On Feb 5, 5:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:33 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 8:46 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>
> > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-pre...
>
> > > Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>
> > > Mark
>
> > No, creationists cannot be on the dumb list.  The university trained
> > evolutionists have commonly expressed their opinion that evolution is
> > the majority view and yet fail to deal with the contradictions and
> > failures of evolutionary thought.
>
> Not only that they fail to produce any evidence whatsoever supporting
> their outlandish claims.

We can produce evidence to support our claims - you just keep shoving
your head up Gene Scott's arse to avoid hearing it. Then claiming
that since you didn't hear of it, it must not exist.

Evolution is FAR less outlandish than 'a Magical Sky Pixie somehow
POOFED !!11!!1!!!1! stuff into existence !!! All who question me are
tools of Satan !!1!!!'

> We are all supposed to believe that the wonders of nature assembled
> itself incrementally, and that it all started with one lucky act
> billions of years ago (a DNA replication engine materialized out of
> inanimate matter).

That is what the available EVIDENCE shows. If you've got something
testable that does a better job of explaining the observed world,
present it.

And DNA is a late addition - the first replicators were most likely
RNA molecules. Given the FACT that such nuclides can be generated via
abiotic means, means
naturalistic abiogenesis had data in support of it; now what, EXACTLY,
do you have to support your flatulent blubberings of 'A MAGICAL SKY
PIXIE POOFED ALL INTO EXISTENCE !!!!!!' ?

> The claim of abiogenesis is the invulnerable
> evidence disproving its likelihood.

Wow - and I thought backspace was an incomprehensible, gibbering
twit !

> One act means it is not a natural
> process, but a supernatural one.

Or just an extremely unlikely one. How, EXACTLY, would you tell the
two apart ?

Or would you just scream 'ME NOT UNDERSTAND IT, SO IT BE
SUPERNATURAL !!11!!!!!!!' like you always do ?

> Yet evolution rejects the
> supernatural (that's why the concept of evolution is accepted:
> Creationism is assumed absurd).

Nope - the 'supernatural' is ill-defined, untestable, and thus has no
place in any reality-based science.
Creationism isn't ASSUMED absurd - it had been demonstrated to be
absurd thousands of times over.
(its complete and utter reliance on the unknowable whims of Magical
Sky Pixies being the main culprit).

> This is why thinking people reject evolution (like Biblearcheology
> said: its the contradictions).

Care to STATE some of these 'contradictions' then ?

In REALITY, thinking people reject IDio-creotardism, because it is
baseless, useless, and absurd.

[Klaus Hellnick]

Why do they lump conservatives with racists?
It is liberals who generally judge people by skin color, the current
U.S. president being an excellent example. The Civil Rights Act was only
passed because of conservative Republicans heavily supporting LBJ
against opposition from his own party. There are many other examples I
could mention, but this is OT.
There does seem to be a correlation between racism and intelligence, though.

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:33 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 8:46 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than
>>> average:
>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-pre...
>>
>>> Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> No, creationists cannot be on the dumb list. The university trained
>> evolutionists have commonly expressed their opinion that evolution is
>> the majority view and yet fail to deal with the contradictions and
>> failures of evolutionary thought.
>
> Not only that they fail to produce any evidence whatsoever supporting
> their outlandish claims.
>
> We are all supposed to believe that the wonders of nature assembled
> itself incrementally,

Not all of them, just the living ones. Since "incremental assembly" has
been observed, and "special creation" has never been observed, one is more
likely than the other.

> and that it all started with one lucky act
> billions of years ago (a DNA replication engine materialized out of
> inanimate matter).

No one claims the first life was "one lucky act". Abiogenesis was most
likely a process that happened over a very long time. Also, no one claims
the first self replicator used DNA.

> The claim of abiogenesis is the invulnerable> evidence disproving its
> likelihood.

No one claims that abiogenesis was a single, sudden event.

> One act means it is not a natural
> process, but a supernatural one.

since no one claims that abiogenesis was a "one act", your assertion is
pointless. Moreover, even if it was a single "act" assuming a supernatural
is inherently unscientific.

> Yet evolution rejects the
> supernatural (that's why the concept of evolution is accepted:
> Creationism is assumed absurd).

All scientific ideas must make use of methodological naturalism as a
matter of course, and evolution is a scientific idea. Evolution, like all
science can only deal with the natural. Supernatural explanations are not
allowed because they can't be tested. Becasue they can't be tested, and
can't be falslified, supernatural ideas are intellectually sterile. That's
why scientists don't make use of them. Evolution is accepted because it
the best scientific theory that fits the evidence. Creation is not "assumed
absurd" it's found to be absurd, as it neither fits the evidence, or offers
a testable explanation.

>
> This is why thinking people reject evolution (like Biblearcheology
> said: its the contradictions) .

There's no evidence that "thinking people" do reject evolution. People
reject evolution for emotional and religious reasons. There are no
contradictions in evolutionary theory.



DJT

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:28:49 -0600, Klaus Hellnick
<khelSP...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/3/2012 10:46 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>
>> Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html
>>
>> Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
>Why do they lump conservatives with racists?
>It is liberals who generally judge people by skin color, the current
>U.S. president being an excellent example. The Civil Rights Act was only
>passed because of conservative Republicans heavily supporting LBJ
>against opposition from his own party. There are many other examples I
>could mention, but this is OT.

Yes it is, but since you mentioned it anyway, your description is very
misleading. Assuming you're referring to the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the political parties which voted on it were very different then
than now. The Democratic Party then included a large bloc of
Dixiecrats, politicians mostly from the South along with a few
southern sympathizers, which voted as a bloc against Republicans out
of a habit going back to the Civil War. Indeed, the existence of this
coalition is one of the reasons Johnson (from Texas) became Senate
Majority Leader, then Vice-President, then President on Kennedy's
assassination. It is this bloc which voted against the Civil Rights
Act.

For good or ill, the passage of the Civil Rights Act destroyed that
coalition. Since that time, those former Democrats, such as John
Connally, and their successors, switched affiliation to Republicans,
the former Party of Lincoln and anti-slavery. Nowadays they vote as a
bloc against Democratic reforms, just as they once did against
Republicans. The Republican Party of today is a classic example of
the tail wagging the dog.

[A.Carlson]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:28:49 -0600, Klaus Hellnick
<khelSP...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/3/2012 10:46 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>
>> Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html
>>
>> Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
>Why do they lump conservatives with racists?

Because racists tend to be conservatives and conservatives are known
to court the racist vote?

>It is liberals who generally judge people by skin color, the current
>U.S. president being an excellent example.

Speaking of examples, perhaps you could give one concerning the
current president.

>The Civil Rights Act was only
>passed because of conservative Republicans heavily supporting LBJ
>against opposition from his own party. There are many other examples I
>could mention, but this is OT.

On the contrary - It is right on topic. To add to what Jillery
posted:

Many southern whites who voted democratic did so because they refused
to vote for the party of Lincoln - the president who freed the slaves
and brought war to the south. A common saying down south was that
they would rather vote for a yellow dog than vote for any Republican.
This is how they came to be known as Yellow Dog Democrats. Also
Dixiecrats as well. They were definitively distinct from northern
Democrats/progressives.

The fact is that through the civil rights era there were few
Republicans in office down south. The few that there were tended to
be far more racist than the southern Democrats. In fact if you really
want to use the civil rights act as a measure not one single southern
Republican (what few there were) voted *for* the civil rights act and
Republicans up north were less likely to vote for the civil rights act
than Democrats up north.

The 1964 presidential election changed everything when the standard
bearer for the R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N party was Barry Goldwater, who
himself voted against the civil rights act. Goldwater was trounced in
all of the northern states but, for the first time since
reconstruction, The Republicans won in the deep south. This is what
ushered in what is now called the southern strategy where Republicans
cater to racism down south and racist southerners found it respectable
to be Republicans.

P.S. When David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the
Ku Klux Klan, was elected to office in Louisiana he successfully did
so as a Republican. He had run a number of times unsuccessfully in
the primaries as a Democrat but it was only as a Republican where he
got a majority to support him.

>There does seem to be a correlation between racism and intelligence, though.

And intelligence and at least some forms of conservatism.

[Klaus Hellnick]

On 2/5/2012 11:12 PM, A.Carlson wrote:
>> >It is liberals who generally judge people by skin color, the current
>> >U.S. president being an excellent example.
> Speaking of examples, perhaps you could give one concerning the
> current president.
>
>> >

Really?
Do the names Frank Davis, Jeremiah Wright, or Henry Gates mean anything
to you?

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Feb 5, 6:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 10:46 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
>
>
> > Conservatives and racists just might be a little dumber than average:
>

> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-pre...

>
> > Creationism fits the bill for simplifying reality.
>
> > Mark
>
> Why do they lump conservatives with racists?
> It is liberals who generally judge people by skin color, the current
> U.S. president being an excellent example. The Civil Rights Act was only
> passed because of conservative Republicans heavily supporting LBJ
> against opposition from his own party. There are many other examples I
> could mention, but this is OT.
> There does seem to be a correlation between racism and intelligence, though.

Actually, northern Democratic member of Congress voted for the Civil
Rights Act at a higher rate than northern Republicans, and southern
Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than southern Republicans. And
conservative Republicans, like Goldwater, opposed the Civil Rights
Act; it was moderate and liberal Republicans who voted for the Act.

Meanwhile, as you know, because of Democratic support for civil
rights, southern Democrats dumped their party, rapidly becoming
Republicans. Since then, the people conservatives idealize - such as
Goldwater and Reagan - opposed the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts.
Heck, even daddy Bush ran for Congress in '64 opposing the '64 Act.
Nixon opposed it at the time; the only Republican Presidential
nominees old enough to have had a contemporary public position on the
Acts, and who supported them, were Ford and Dole; if conservatives had
had their way, neither would have been the nominees.

Mitchell Coffey

[Robert Camp]

Sure, they mean many things. What they don't appear to suggest (as far
as I can tell), except perhaps in the case that one has only a shallow
familiarity with the Gates story, is that Obama is an example of
judging people by skin color. Perhaps you might explain?

RLC

[half...@bfe.inc]

But the elder Bush did vote for the Civil Rights Bill in 1968 to much
criticism from the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

Halfstop