To the editor:
At this point, I should be unsurprised that this paper has published another letter to the editor from somebody who has a distinct lack of understanding of science. Words are limited, so let me just get to the facts.
The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy are not the same thing. Unfortunately, your letter writer doesn't understand this at all.
The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy does not, in any way, reveal that the universe cannot "create itself." In fact, many well respected and awarded physicists have developed and tested models which show that the Big Bang (and thus the universe) can arise from nothing other than quantum vacuum fluctuation.
For more, read the works of Stephen Hawking, Sean Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku or Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek. I'm partial to the way Lawrence Krauss explains it all in his book "A Universe from Nothing."
Ignoring the letter writer's inability to keep straight the laws of thermodynamics, their names, and their implications, his argument based on "The Second Law" is nonsense.
He makes a statement based on ignorance of the topic and then concludes that everything is the result of some higher being without offering even the slightest bit of evidence that said being exists.
As the brilliant Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
In science "laws" are statements that describe the repeated observation of phenomena and are applicable only under the same conditions. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are applicable only to closed systems, wherein no energy is permitted to either leave or enter the system.
A scientific "theory" on the other hand posits a falsifiable mechanism or phenomenon which has been backed by observation and experimentation. A "theory" is the most reliable and comprehensive type of scientific knowledge and must meet rigorous standards before being adopted by the scientific community.
What the letter writer offers is an un-falsifiable hypothesis with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It is the very definition of "vain babbling."
If he wants people to believe in not just a god, but his particular god, he must first present the evidence that a god exists and second, present the evidence that it is his god that exists, not one of the thousands of other gods of antiquity.