Good grief - I'm guessing research and statistics isn't your thing.... which is fine of course... Would you like to try again if you believe there is a statistical error and highlight where in the statistical method, incorrect methods were used. What you just described ie genetic factors, has nothing to do with the methodology. Are you off on some other tangent? Can you explain what you are trying to get at in another way because I've read the methodology and analysis several times and I have no idea what you are talking about....and I'm no slouch with research methods.
I'm a professor at a business school in the US. I teach how to do research and statistics and how to do detection of bad research. However I'm not arguing from my 30+ years of experience doing research but rather that the inability demonstrated in the OP and later replies to recognize a common fallacy recognizable by any sophomore at any undergraduate school in the US.
Apparently instead of doing a simple 30-second search on Google to engage my claim or my examples or an apology for engaging in propaganda like appeals to snobbery, we get, "Apparently research isn't your thing."
We now have added reading comprehension to the list of challenges.
No straw men, sweeping generalizations, ad hominems or other informal fallacies can rescue your claims.
We simple derive philosophical truth claims based on logic not genetic characteristics of claimants. Please engage arguments sans propaganda and we will have a informative discussion.
Here is a link since your search engine is not functioning:
GENETIC FALLACY
(also known as: fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue)
Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.
Your study's claim: atheism is held by the smartest people.
Implicit premise: smarter people produce more true beliefs about the world then less smart people
Implicit argument: therefore atheism is true.
Logical Form:
The origin of the claim is presented.
Therefore, the claim is true/false.
Example #1:
Lisa was brainwashed as a child into thinking that people are generally good. Therefore, people are not generally good.
Explanation: That fact that Lisa may have been brainwashed as a child, is irrelevant to the claim that people are generally good.
Example #2:
He was born to Catholic parents and raised as a Catholic until his confirmation in 8th grade. Therefore, he is bound to want to defend some Catholic traditions and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.
Explanation: I am referring to myself here. While my upbringing was Catholic, and I have long since considered myself a Catholic, that is irrelevant to any defenses I make of Catholicism -- like the fact that many local churches do focus on helping the community through charity work. If I make an argument defending anything Catholic, the argument should be evaluated on the argument itself, not on the history of the one making the argument or how I came to hold the claims as true or false.
Exception: At times, the origin of the claim is relevant to the truth of the claim.
I believe in closet monsters because my big sister told me unless I do whatever she tells me, the closet monsters will eat me.
References:
Engel, S. M., Soldan, A., & Durand, K. (2007).
The Study of Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield.
IN YOUR FAKE RESEARCH YOU MAKE AN APPEAL TO IQ (a genetic trait) an an explanation of a claim about God's existence.
If we are uneducated or fooled by your research-speak, we might miss the fact that the Kalam and leibnizian cosmological arguments for God's existence stand or fall based on the soundness of the argument and truth-value of their premises.
So too for the fine-tuning argument for life based on the laws and values of the constants and other teleological arguments such as the sudden arrival of massive amounts of complex specified information in first biological life.
So too the moral argument from the intuitive notion that objective moral values and duties exist.
Or various transcendent arguments such as the strange applicability of math towards discovery of features of our universe to there seem to be no atheists in fox holes.
Your pretense is getting absurd.
There are good arguments in support of both theistic and atheistic inferences. But why should we let "research" dodge engaging the evidence and premises and arguments?