T  W  I  N       C  I  T  I  E  S       C  R  E  A  T  I  O  N       S  C  I  E  N  C  E       A  S  S  O  C  I  A  T  I  O  N

NEA Today
1201 16th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Editor,

As a public school science teacher of 31 years, I was interested in your coverage of Intelligent Design vs. Darwin in your "Rights Watch" section.

Well, the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton felt that believing in Intelligent Design was foundational to scientific thought. He said "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Evolutionists seem to be afraid that teaching "Intelligent Design" will harm science students. Believing in a Creator was not a detriment to producing the great scientific minds of Newton, Carver, Pascal, Linnaeus, Pasteur, Lister, Faraday and many more. These great scientists understood that creation was orderly because there was an intelligent Creator, and were unashamed to admit it. The NEA seems to think that there should only be the teaching of pure evolution as promoted by the most influential evolutionary spokesmen, Dr. Richard Dawkins. Professor Dawkins denies the existence of the Creator and has said "The universe we observe has precisely the qualities we should expect if th ere is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Dr. Francis Crick has said "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but evolved." Why does Crick say this? The evidence shows that there is design and scientists must not be tempted to admit it.

If this is what the NEA wants, they should realize that they only alienate most of the public and chase students into private schools where parents' views are taken into account. After all it was only a handful of parents who complained (with the A.C.L.U.'s help) in both policy cases, thereby overruling large numbers of parents who worked to get the policies in place.

I choose to believe the logic of Sir Isaac Newton rather than that of the hard core materialists Eugenie Scott and Dr. Dawkins.

Bryan Olson
P.S. I hope you are open to print opposing views.