Letters to the editor

Atheism has its fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins. Everyone has faith in something that is beyond science to prove. Science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and logical and not absurd. Dawkins has a similar problem to those who cannot explain where a complex God came from. Where did the Big Bang come from, and what existed before? If the anthropic principle (the laws of nature seem to have been crafted for the emergence and sustenance of life) was inherent in the Big Bang, then where did that complexity come from? If it was all random, that is a faith assumption also.

Ken Savage

Palm Desert



Dawkins' atheistic rants about creationism and God's existence are tiresome. Fundamentalist creationists are equally wrong. It is not logically contradictory to hold both that God is the author of all that exists and that the Big Bang and evolution are the ways God created and continues to create everything that exists. Neither statement can be proved nor disproved by science. Even Jesus didn't worry about proofs for God's existence.

James McDermott

Pasadena



Dawkins argues that if vastly superior beings from some distant planet did indeed seed life on Earth, they could not be considered gods because someone must have created them. Thus, the only true God must be the one who created the universe itself.

This is, of course, the position that is reflected in Christian teaching. During my Catholic upbringing, I was taught that God "is," meaning he always was and always will be. Defining God in that manner is another way of saying that no matter how sophisticated our theories become, ultimately we cannot explain how the universe got started from nothing and why the world exists. This notion embodies the ultimate mystery of life, which is beyond our power to penetrate from a purely logical and philosophical point of view, and which we must accept on that basis and learn to live with.

Paul Rosenberger

Manhattan Beach



Dawkins argues that "intelligent design" is not science. He is correct. But after that, he moves into less certain territory in which his reasoning inevitably moves to the problem of first causes. There he pretty much avoids the details. In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed. If the latter is improbable, as he claims, then why is not the former also? Without saying so explicitly, he clearly favors the former, which he is free to do. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know why he favors one and not the other. Could it be that the latter might make moral claims on all of us, something that would threaten our desire to be morally autonomous?

William S. LaSor

Apple Valley, Calif.



How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.

As a former evolutionist, I have seen the results of following the data to the most logical conclusion in today's scientific community. Evolutionists control the scientific community, and any questioning of the current paradigm is cause for ridicule, harassment and sometimes destruction of careers. They should be ashamed, for they have created a totalitarian science community in which everyone must parrot the party line and independent thought is not allowed.

Elaine Fleeman

Bakersfield

Obama's acquaintances

Re "The influence test," editorial, April 18

This editorial stated that a casual and unimportant relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers "proves that Obama was a Chicago liberal." The only thing that sentence proves is that your editorial writers are intellectually and semantically challenged, as well as politically biased. Proof requires much more than mere association, and your editors should know that.

Thomas Clayton

Santa Clarita



As a Caucasian, retired member of the clergy and a longtime friend of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, I am appalled by the guilt-by-association "Swift boating" that your editorial seems to support.

If the members of the congregations I served had decided to drop their membership every time I said something from the pulpit that disturbed them, I would have preached to empty pews. Freedom of the pulpit is a cherished concept, as is freedom of the press.

The idea that Wright may have been "injudicious" in his use of words on occasion belies the fact that he is a superb prophet, preacher and communicator of the faith who has walked the walk, not just talked the talk.

To suggest that Obama should have known better than to associate with a church that had a truth-telling preacher shows a lack of understanding on your part.

The fact that it is even an issue in this campaign shows the depth of racism, xenophobia and classism that exists among us. Shame on you for your part in this.

The Rev. Larold

K. Schulz

Claremont



While putting candidate Obama through your "influence test," you state, "there is no evidence that Obama was spiritually or politically influenced by the Weatherman-turned-education professor William Ayers." And this leads your editorial to conclude, "That's not news."

Fine. But if it's not news, why does The Times have a long story in the same section of the newspaper called "Obama and the former radicals"? Is it because, as the story's headline states, "a YouTube video is making noise"? As in your editorial, by your reporters' lights, the evidence linking Obama to former militants "remained thin." So I guess by Times logic, noise makes news?

Hank Rosenfeld

Santa Monica

Put resources into geriatrics

Re "Crisis in healthcare foreseen," April 15

The nursing shortage in the U.S. is one reason our healthcare system is unprepared to meet the needs of aging baby boomers. Plenty of enthusiastic and qualified applicants with interest in a geriatric focus are turned away from nursing programs because there simply is not enough faculty to educate them. Our healthcare system lags behind the expanding roles that nurses can play. Devoting resources to their education and training is an excellent way to address the shortage of practitioners with geriatric expertise.

Elisabeth Tove

Gundersen

San Francisco





One answer is to provide programs specifically geared to teaching medical students about geriatric care. Another is to provide incentives for them to pursue this field of care, especially in underserved areas. Physicians with a specialty in geriatrics can serve as clinician educators for all physicians, all of whom must learn more about geriatric care. They also will serve as the researchers for learning more about aging processes, delaying disability and ultimately reducing healthcare costs, goals that benefit everyone.

Raising the prestige of geriatrics in the medical community and schools will also have an effect.

We need additional public-private partnerships to accomplish this, and better Medicare reimbursement for hospitals that have geriatric programs so they don't drown in debt while caring for a growing aging population.

Stephanie Lederman

Executive Director

American Federation

for Aging Research

New York

U.S. attorney is doing his job

Re "U.S. atty. in L.A. set quotas, staff says," April 18

So some disgruntled prosecutors in U.S. Atty. Tom O'Brien's office are upset because he is setting performance goals or quotas, as they claim. Too bad.

The fact is that we finally have a high-energy U.S. attorney who is focusing the efforts of his office in a highly productive way, by putting the attention on gangs, violent offenders and illegal immigrants with felony convictions who have been caught in the country again after being deported.

O'Brien is doing that in response to requests from the general public and officials such as myself. We understand that violent crime here in Los Angeles cannot be successfully reduced without the help of the federal government. O'Brien's prosecutors should understand that too.

William J. Bratton

Chief of Police

Los Angeles

Mixed signals

Re "Chertoff's border ambitions," April 19

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff's border fences (actual and virtual) will never keep out illegal crossers as long as they continue to send competing messages. One sign reads "Keep Out." The other, "Help Wanted."

Stephen C. Lee

La Habra