Letters:

Arthur Caplan's commentary last Sunday ("Palin's creationism stance would impede progress") raises a very frightening prospect. Creationism indeed has no place in the classroom, but people like Sarah Palin, secure in the supposed infallibility of their beliefs, and anxious to impose them on anyone within range with evangelical fervor, will do their best to bring future generations into their backward world. This is a scenario that cannot be allowed to happen.

Jim Nettleton

Cherry Hill

Is it ethical for an ethicist to distort Gov. Sarah Palin's views on teaching creationism so that he can ask others to infer - wrongly - that she is anti-science? Arthur Caplan uses one quote from a recent Associated Press article and ignores this more specific elaboration on her views in the Anchorage Daily News: "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. 'I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum,' she said." So, Palin did not say creationism had to be part of a curriculum. More important, can Caplan point to one thing Palin has done to show her views on science pose a great threat to the future of our children, our health or the nation's economy? In a word, no.

Paul Laskow

Philadelphia

Arthur Caplan says that because Sarah Palin believes in creationism the United States won't be able to "compete in world markets that rely on our scientific and technical prowess." That is a bigger leap than from primordial soup to human being.

Eric Wolfinger

Quakertown

Jonathan Zimmerman's screed ("Obama's call for unity hits the wall of race," last Sunday) is woefully incomplete and simplistic.

While racial division does exist, and always will, Obama's call for unity is hitting a much more significant wall - political philosophy. In brief, the Obama hype about hope and change has pointed to and sharpened a fundamental philosophical division in America, namely, will voters embrace the Democratic Party's government-as-savior approach or embrace the traditional American values of limited government.

George Tomezsko

Philadelphia

The basic thrust of Dick Polman's article last Sunday ("Unspoken: Obama's race may be decider") is if Barack Obama loses the election, then it must be because Americans, lying to pollsters, are secretly racist. This is a great disservice to Obama. As a white, I found his campaign refreshing because he eschewed racial identity against pressure to make it a central point of his candidacy.

I'm not naive. There will always be racism in America. But if there is any discrimination in this contest, it is likely to be based on age, Obama being too young and McCain too old.

Thomas Snow

Vineland, N.J.

For Michael Smerconish, whose opinion I usually value, to take the leap that Sarah Palin's performance during her acceptance speech - along with a comment from David Cohen, who could well have his own agenda - somehow makes her qualified to be president is beyond astonishing ("Nobody's asking the right question about Palin," last Sunday).

His comparison of Palin's experience with the 1992 candidacy of Bill Clinton is even more ridiculous. Clinton was by then a nearly four-term governor of Arkansas and had been on the national stage for many years, not minutes.

Brett Wallach

Hatfield

ChaCha is one more way to steer young people away from traditional education ("Answers are only a call away," Wednesday). New technologies and services like it will not really help students cheat but could disadvantage them in the long run. Offering students immediate answers to academic questions without having to open a book will not help them develop the analytical and research skills they will need for their educations and in the workplace.

Danielle Nicosia

West Chester

» READ MORE: DN632320@wcupa.edu