Slashdot Mirror
Teacher Cannot Be Sued For Denying Creationism
gzipped_tar writes "A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a public high school teacher in Mission Viejo, California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher's hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lawsuit must be thrown out of court because the teacher was entitled to immunity."
So if a teacher came out in favor of creationism, a radical form, let's say one that proclaimed blacks, asians, and all other non-whites as descendants of evil evil Cain, would it be possible to sue that teacher?
Clearly and obviously Adam and Eve never existed and this should be taught to any young person as truth is always preferable to falsehoods, but what about someone promoting a falsehood?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
One point for Common Sense.
That pesky Constitution really mucks up frivolous litigation sometimes
I am not that surprised that the case occurred. I can see why people might be annoyed at being compelled to pay the salary of somebody who denigrates their beliefs, and there's a difference between freely expressing a personal opinion vs one's responsibilities in acting as an agent/employee of the state. But, like the judge said, it is important for education to challenge beliefs, especially when known facts contract those beliefs.
TFA includes a shortened transcript of the teacher's comments, and it doesn't sound to me like he was criticizing religion per se. Rather, he was criticizing attempts by people to pose religion as science (such as intelligent design), by saying that the "logic" used to argue in favor of creationism is fundamentally flawed and nonscientific. And especially if intelligent design advocates continue to insist that their ideas be taught as science in a science classroom, then such criticisms should certainly be fair game in science classrooms.
At least from the transcript, it didn't seem like he was directly criticizing those who nevertheless believe in a creator as a matter of faith and not of science.
I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.
The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."
There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.
Seems to me, from the brief notes in TFA, that the judge suggested it was ok to say that creationists were completely failing to follow scientific principles in claiming their position was correct. The teacher didn't directly attack religion, just the absurd methodology of the religious folks in this case.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Didn't RTFA, did ya?
If only.
These days schools teach children to be bricks in the wall, not critical thinkers capable of making their own educated judgments.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacherâ(TM)s hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.
1. Yes, if the school is public then the salary of the teacher is paid from taxes, however it's not necessary that the taxes are Federal in nature, though of-course States cannot dismiss parts of US Constitution as it stands (but they can and need to challenge the federal government that it is not following the US Constitution, but that's a different topic).
2. No, even if the teacher was clearly a government representative, his remarks do not violate anything in the Constitution. His remarks are in fact his own opinion and are also free speech and thus government cannot prevent the teacher from expressing his views, which is his right.
3. If the teacher used his attitude towards the religions to discriminate against people, and by discriminate I mean apply government power against them in any way based on their religious associations, then it would have been a violation.
The appeals court side-stepped the question of whether Dr. Corbettâ(TM)s comment on creationism and other derogatory remarks about religious faith were unconstitutional.
They should not have sidestepped it, seems like the judge didn't want to pass any real ruling here, he didn't want to be on record. Shows how weak and pathetic the justice system has become.
Instead, the panel concluded that since Corbett was entitled to qualified immunity it was not necessary for the appeals court to determine whether his comments actually violated the Constitution.
What is this magic immunity? Is it the right to free speech, because that's the only real immunity.
--
Everybody is wrong in this case, the teacher shouldn't be trolling his obviously religious students, the students shouldn't be starting these frivolous lawsuits and the judge should grow a pair.
You can't handle the truth.
If you have to ask the question then you don't understand the real issue.
Religious belief is 100% completely unprovable and relies on "faith" and good feelings as confirmation instead of tests and observation. (I would be wrong but is there a "god test" that can be performed to prove the existence?)
Religious people see this as "two sides opposing" because "everyone believes in something." That is also ridiculous. People who want to know and understand seek to learn by evidence, testing and experimentation. Religion offers none of this. In the end, religion fosters an end of knowledge in favor of belief. If there are two opposing sides of the issue, it is "persuit of knowledge" vs "belief." But no one on the religious side wants to admit that is the truth.
Indeed. Here's the transcript for reference for people who didn't RTFA:
He gets bonus points from me for including the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So is creationism science, or is it religion?
I thought that creationists argued that their ideas were "scientific" or was that the intelligent designers?
Anyway, either it's a religion, the basis for the creationists' case here, and would therefore have no place in a proper education system to begin with,
or creationism is a science, giving it a place in the education system but allowing teacher to have & express a negative opinion about it.
This seems the kind of circular reasoning we've come to expect from creationists and intteligent design proponents, in yet another interesting new form.
Creationism is an infectious idea that has the potential to do a great deal of damage amongst the less educated. The last thing the United States needs is public resistance to fundamental research. If left to their own devices and accommodated instead of confronted, the supporters of this ideology could (and would) push the US back to before the Renaissance. It's happened before.
Of course, that being said, the Chinese would pick up the slack (and arguably already have), but their government is fantastically corrupt and secretive and probably wouldn't make the best flag-bearer for human civilization.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?
It is an interesting question. If you look at the transcript, you will see that what was said did stay within the bounds of science, in that there was no statement that there was no God; just that there is no scientific proof of creationism and that the methodology of creationists does not meet scientific standards. He then continued to talk about the history of the dispute about teaching creationism in schools.
What is bizarre is that this is exactly what the creationists want - to teach the controversy. The trouble is that if you start asking scientifically minded people to do this then you are bound to end up with them teaching the flaws in creationism.
Does this mean that you would support a teacher with a belief in creationism teaching his opinion in a public school? I have my doubts.
Religion makes people dangerous. Faith makes people willing to fly planes into buildings and murder thousands of innocent civilians at the behest of evil humans that set themselves up as the voice of god. Faith makes people blow up clinics. It makes people seek to deny fundamental human rights from their neighbors (like the right to love and marry who one chooses).
Believing in God would be fine if it didn't include believing in whatever evil things some voice-of-god humans have to say.
I can see the sense in having a disparity there. Leading a school or whatever in prayer is clearly going in favour of one particular religion, while views critical of religion as a whole do not exclude anyone.
I write bullshit
The belief the teacher ridiculed isn't the belief in creationism, but the belief that creationism is science. The teacher made no comment on the value of faith whatsoever, only that creationism is faith, not science. Complete with an explanation of what that means. Creationists look for proof that creationism is true, and scientists look for proof that evolution ISN'T. If a student expressed outrage at the teaching of rainfall because it contradicts the teaching of their church, would it be equally wrong to explain that "the rain is God's tears" isn't scientific? How should the teacher proceed if a student objects to teaching science? Clearly you oppose explaining how faith and fact are different, so what do you do? Ignore the student? Cancel class on account of faith? Or what? How do you handle it, if you aren't allowed to address it?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
As long as it's factually based....
Which might make the lecture a little shorter.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Please read the TFA before you post more of your creationist/dominionist drivel. The SCIENCE TEACHER told "his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.” This is not a statement about religon, it is statement about how science is conducted: You pose an hypothesis and then attempt to prove the hypothesis wrong. You look for evidence that the hypothesis is right or wrong. This is not how creationism works. Creationism starts with the ASSUMPTION and then does everything POLITICALLY possible to prevent anyone from pointing out the glaringly obvious errors, exactly the technique used in this case. Strange the Creationist keep insisting that the earth is only 6000 years old, but there are many examples of Chinese cultural artifacts and written documents dating back to 6000BC, ie., 8000 years ago, An yes the coach should be in jail for pushing his particular religon on his students.
The teacher wasn't making fun of the student, the teacher was explaining how creationism fails as a science.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
And for the record, I am not religious and do not practice religion, but I grew up around it and I respect the desires of others to do so if they wish.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The science teachers should bash religion all the want. Send your kids to church to learn mythology; or allow the humanities teachers to discuss religions equally.
The constitution is against promotion of a religion -- NO pushing of religion. period. Keep religion out of government is the whole point. (remember, the king of England was heavily connected to religion...) Somebody making comments against any of the many idiocies of our primitive ancient (older than mid-evil) beliefs is not violating this at all! Heresy could be a crime if if it wasn't for the prohibition of religion in government. Heresy includes a lot of science, logic, philosophy etc.
Furthermore, my point is that government can bash all religion equally without promoting any single one of them; some could argue that the banning of religion is possible to a degree but I'm not going there (human sacrifices and many other religious practices are illegal and its constitutional.) Non-religion is not a religion. So you are not promoting 1 religion over the others if you are "attacking" them all fairly.
"FREE PRESS" but we tax them... That severely limits the press of today where the real news comes from papers who are going broke. Religions, they don't get taxed yet they get less empowerment in the constitution than the press does.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You can teach science without attacking religion.
That only works if religion doesn't actively attack science. Religious organisations have attempted to prevent evolution being taught because it conflicts with a story written 2000 years ago. When they couldn't stop it, they tried to start teaching their stories as facts in schools. When Creationism was rejected, they cynically made up a "science" so that they could force that into schools.
Intelligent Design is a very anti-science topic. By definition it cannot prove any of its claims, so it uses negative arguments attacking evolution. It claims that some things cannot be explained by science, so therefore ID is right. It claims that missing links prove evolution is wrong (and if a missing link is found, then they just move the goalposts and find another missing link).
It claims that some organisms (or parts of them - eg eyes) are so complicated that they couldn't possibly evolve, despite scientists being able to show fossil evidence of precursors to those organisms.
And finally, I didn't see anything attacking religion in the transcript so this whole argument is moot.
He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students.
The best way to serve his students would be to teach them. Why should stop doing that just because they come to class with pre-conceived ideas.
http://chadfarnan.com/
Further support of parent's comments, the above URL has a big link to "Advocates for Fait and Freedom" under the caption of "support chad by supporting."
I can't say I give enough of a fuck to trace the money trail, but if it's a legit non-profit, more info can be gleaned from irs.gov
The teacher is acting on the behalf of a government that is prohibited from endorsing or forbidding religion of any kind.
I think making fun of magical thinking is a critical part of any curriculum. In fact, I believe it is the central tennet of education.
When you are very young, you learn many facts, reading, writing counting. As time goes, you learn more things, but also how they are articulated to form a self-consistent corpus of knowledge.
And you learn that reason and critical thinking is the glue thant binds knowledge. Education bascally recapitulates the evolution of knowledge, from disparate facts to over-arching theories. And so the abandonment of magical thinking (the furmula for the roots of a second order polynomial, dinosaurs became chickens) to theories: the structure of a ring does not allow closed form solutions for polynomials of degree more than 3 and evolution is the mechanisms through which we had dinosaurs, and now we have chicken and crocodiles.
So basically what we have here is the schools mandating teachers only teach the official State religion.
You have a sad, strange definition of religion, my friend.
Faith is belief without evidence. Religion is based on faith. Religion can't answer the great questions about life, the universe, and everything, because religion is indistinguishable from making shit up.
Evolution is an area of scientific study, with much experimental support. Next to gravity, it is the best-supported theory in science. And, it is understood to a greater degree than gravity.
The teaching of evolution is not the teaching of religion, but the teaching of science. Attempting to conflate the two is just plain silly. Any argument based on the conflation of the two (such as your weird rant about "Political correctness," which is just code for, "I want to be racist/sexist/homophobic without feeling guilty") is therefore unsupported, and quite likely just plain wrong.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The problem is that a scientific theory can only be displaced by another scientific theory. Creationism has been demonstrated to make no testable predictions. Therefore, it's not a scientific proposition.
And after a theory has been proven correct as often and as firmly as evolution, it becomes more and more likely it is the correct proposition.
More tellingly, though, is the reason people propose creationism. It's almost invariably because of their religious belief. That's not a good reason to challenge the validity of evolution. In fact, it's the stupidest reason there is.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
> Who are saying that "the debate is settled"? Certainly not scientists,
I agree that by any sensible definition of 'science' they aren't. Science isn't decided by a vote. No matter how popular or beautiful a theory is, it must fall to ONE stubborn fact or it isn't science anymore. But by the circular logic that prevails today 'climate scientist' is defined as those who study climate change and man's destruction of the climate. Anyone who doesn't believe in AGW is thus declared to NOT be a climate scientist and that therefore 'all' climate scientists agree that AGW is real and almost all agree the only solution is socialism. More importantly the funding decisions (mostly politicians invested in the proposed solution to AGW) are being made almost entirely based on the 'settled science' theory. The people in charge of the 'reputable' (similar circular definition) science journals are all deeply invested in the group think of settled science theory.
Democrat delenda est
Hey! I had a bag of pot. I turned my back for a second and it went missing. Anyone seen my pot? I'm getting pretty desper...
So what is truth? Does an objective truth exist at all? How would we know it, assuming it even existed?
Found it!
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There's a reason there is an established method of punctuation and grammar. Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
They are certainly hostile to the state establishing a particular religion and/or faith. That hostility happens to be codified in the first amendment to the constitution.
next to gravity, it is the best-supported theory by science
WTf? We only know the effects of gravity, we do NOT know what CAUSES gravity.Right now we have a theory/faith that a god particle exists but there is no proof. You might want to come up with a better comment.
Mischaracterizations aside, one of these ideas is supported by multiple lines of evidence (the cosmic microwave background radiation, observable expansion of the universe, etc.) the other is supported by a 2000-year (give or take) idea.
And... "anti-Creationists"? Seriously?
HAND.
And when science doesn't know the answer that is what science says: we don't know.
When religion doesn't know what the answer is it just makes stuff up. Then the truly faithful sticks to this made up stuff no matter what the evidence. Occasionally when there is overwhelming evidence religious views are modified, but it is a slow painful process.
Science does a better job of answering the big questions because it is seeking the truth, not making up its mind a priori. The scientific method is the best method we have for seeking true answers to questions about the actual universe as it really is, not how we wish it was. Religion is not as good at answering any question about the actual, real universe, because its conjectures are just stories made up by men who were woefully uneducated by our current standards. Science constantly seeks to test its theories, broaden its knowledge, and is quite happy to admit when it was wrong or partially right. Religion has none of these desirable features.
Anarchists never rule
Johny, probably the son of somebody in the hate group AFA, was upset because the teacher didn't agree with his mommy and daddy so tax payers had to throw a bunch of money away in courts to make Johny feel good? Are spoiled evangelical kids so important we have to pay for their tantrums?
Yes, apparently the kid was so spoiled that his classmates called him "princess".
Here is a quote about the case from the defendant himself back in February ( http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/james-corbett-case-update-12-feb-%E2%80%9811/ )
I’m Dr. Corbett. One thing readers should understand is that when my school-provided attorney made the decision to ask a judge rather than a judge decide the case, the law required that all the “facts” be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Chad). That meant that we could not challenge the validity of the recordings, which were heavily edited. It meant that we could not point out how each and every comment clearly related to the curriculum. I might add, Chad’s recording were in violation of California law.
This case was never about religion. It was about a whiny little boy who admitted he didn’t do his homework and who’s helicopter parents intervened so often in school and on the water polo team that other students called him “princess.” Neither Chad, his parents nor his lawyers, the so called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” ever made an attempt to even talk to me or attempt to resolve the issues prior to filing a lawsuit. It is my opinion that the “Advocates” were far more interested in having a case they could use for fundraising than they were in dealing with the issues. They are a textbook example of exactly what I commented on in class, that some people use the faith of others to line their pockets with gold or to gain political power. I believe such use of religion is vastly more offensive than calling Biblical creation “superstitious, religious nonsense,” which is obviously true.”
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
This is a logical fallacy. To consider the argument, you have to presume that there is a God capable of building a human being from dust, which God also created first. The argument that God must have made Eve to be a clone assumes that God didn't create something new in the process, which is kind of contrary to the assumption of a Creator.
Certainly, if the God described in the creation story exists as described, then creating whole genomes from scratch is pretty much old hat by the time Eve is created. To say that they "must" be clones would be an odd assumption, particularly given the rest of the story. Further, the story details the creation of the first man and woman but at no point is it stated that they were the only humans he created. Some people believe that, perhaps many, but it simply isn't in the traditional story, and interestingly when their sons head out into the world, they meet up with other people, with admittedly could have been the product of incest and lives long enough to consider a couple of centuries to be middle aged, but more reasonably could be taken as more humans created whose creation stories aren't recorded.
Ancestry is very important to many prophesies and was very important to the religion of the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve provide a traceable lineage from God's hand and plan all the way to Jesus Christ, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that there were many other people created along the way. Genetics studies actually make the case that all living human beings share the heritage of no more than a few thousand individuals. (Look up the Toba event.)
None of this proves that God created Adam and Eve first or that the story is true at all, none of it proves that God did anything or that God exists. If you prefer another explanation of the facts, that's certainly something that (IMHO) society should protect as a liberty. I'm absolutely in favour of presenting logical reasons for what you believe, regardless of whether they happen to agree with my own or not. The only reason I'm responding to the parent is to point out that saying "God must have created a clone" is misleadingly simplistic.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
After RTFS, I get the impression that the teacher said something like "Creationism is false. Creationism is garbage."
After RTFA, I realize the teacher basically said "creationists rarely use scientific arguments to support their belief."
Long live exaggerated and misleading Slashdot summaries.
I believe in evidence. If we find hard evidence of creation, I'm cool with it.
Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
Ill spin on a fucking dime
Ill be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
Its a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory in it!
And while its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo its had in it!
You show me that it works and how it works
And when Ive recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That" on the side of my cock.
Tim Minchin, Storm
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Let's try this again. I have not attempted nor suggested silencing anyone. Rather I pointed that Creationist/Dominionist do follow the teachings they claim to and love toplay the martyr. If you were a Christian you would recognize the word phylacteries, where it came from and the meaning. Further you would recognize who and what the Scribes and Pharisees were and what they preached. Specifically the Pharasees were a a jewish sect that had a "sense of superiority to the heathen and idolatrous nations among whom their lot was cast came to be one of their main characteristics. In the time of Our Lord such was their power and prestige that they sat and taught in "Moses' seat". This prestige naturally engendered arrogance and conceit, and led to a perversion in many respects of the conservative ideals of which they had been such staunch supporters." In many passages of the Gospels, Christ is quoted as warning the multitude against them in scathing terms. "The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten in the chair of Moses . All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say and do not. For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matthew 23:1-8). Then follows the terrible arraignment of the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, their rapacity, and their blindness (ibid., 13-36). There is not a better description of modern day Creationists/Dominionist. The nice thing about the US is that I can believe what I believe and you can believe what you believe in and we can live together in peace. Unfortunately that is not what Creationist/Domionists want. Very specifically In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a creationist/dominionist is a commitment to building society that that is self-consciously defined as exclusively creationist/dominionist, and dependent specifically on the work of creastionist/dominionist, rather than based on a broader consensus. These modern day Pharasees celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy. These modern day Pharasses promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity, very specifically Catholics and they endorse theocratic visions. In simple terms these self-proclaimed martyrs want to shove their religion down everyones throat. Say and believe what you want, but do not force me to believe in this non-Christian nonsense. If Catholics, Lutherans, and other major religons of the world believe that our faith teaches how to live and science teaches about our world why do the creationist/dominionist feel that they have the ONLY solution. Major players in this drive to shove this brand of theocracy down everyones thoat are people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy
People act like science is perfect
No, science is reliable. That is a very different thing than "perfect".
but one new fact could totally change everything scientifically
Correct. That is the very foundation of science, and that why it is so reliable. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists constantly checking the existing evidence against established science, and constantly searching for new evidence to further support or challenge established science, and when necessary updating established science to reflect that new evidence.
If there is a rape&murder case, if there is DNA evidence, if the suspect's fingerprints are all over the murder weapon, if there are a hundred other pieces of evidence all confirming the suspect committed the crime, then any sane jury unanimously convicts. The legal standard, the only sane standard, is evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt". The suspect's parents may not want to believe it's true, they can certainly say (as you did) "one new fact could totally change everything" . However a strong desire that something is wrong and the statement that new evidence could some day could prove it wrong doesn't make it reasonable or rational to believe something actually is wrong. Not when an entire planet-worth of evidence all establishes that it's true, far far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why don't we focus on the flaws in science as well? Mainly that hugely complex organisms like humans were created from totally random chaotic interactions which favor chaos instead of order. Thus it is far more likely to not have an organism "evolve" than for it to evolve.
You are not discussing a flaw in science, your are discussing your flawed conclusion or incomplete understanding of the science.
I assume you agree that the complex beauty of snowflakes are far more ordered than the random distribution of water atoms in liquid water or water vapor, or even a regular block of ice.
Sunlight shines down on the earth evaporating water, which then cools and radiates that energy out into space, and that water vapor then often falls down to earth as snowflakes.
When there is an energy flow, it is not only possible, but common for the laws of physics to spontaneously transform disorder into increasing order and complexity. The very fact of snowflakes demonstrates that your argument is false. When there is an energy flow, order can and does increase in the matter that the energy passes through.
When the sun shines on the earth, there is a 100% probability that some of the disordered water will be undergo an increase in order into the beautiful complexity of snowflakes.
And for the exact same reason, the flow of energy through living things powers the 100% probability of those living things evolving "upwards". The laws of the universe make it not only possible but inevitable for evolution to happen.
It seems to me that you are grossly selling God short. The laws of the universe give us nuclear fusion in the sun, making it not only possible but certain for the sun to shine warmth and sunlight for the earth. The laws of the universe make rainbows not only possible but inevitable. The laws of the universe give us chemistry which makes up out bodies and makes them function and fuels in the form of food. The laws of the universe give us evolution which not only makes it possible but inevitable for a single living thing to evolve into all the wondrous diversity and complexity of life we see today.
Are you going to deny the existence of God, or denigrate God, just because you dislike how the universe is run?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.