Imagine for a moment that there is grave concern in your community about the possibility of a bear at large. Elaborate scientific investigation has been mounted to determine if and where the bear has appeared and where it may likely appear again.

Try to conceive of how you would feel if, one morning in the local cafe, you hear an old-timer mention casually, "That bear they're looking for is just like the one I've seen in my yard every morning at 6."

Yet this is precisely the way many creationists feel about the teaching of evolution. The scientists are amassing huge amounts of research to piece together what caused the universe as we know it. They are looking at many possibilities, and these possibilities are being taught in our tax-supported schools.

But a claim has been made in the cafe that our origin has been observed, only this is better than the bear story. The old-timer says he saw the one that caused the commotion, but many claim there is good evidence for a God who not only saw but caused the commotion we call the universe.

Some creationists would distance themselves from this way of presenting their case, and there are many types of evolutionists. There are even those somewhere between: the theistic evolutionists. Yet the Concord Monitor in "Scopes retried" (editorial, Aug. 5) wants to limit who can come into the cafe. Let's call investigation without direct observation "science," and allow only it into our cafes, our public schools, the Monitor says. Anyone who believes there is evidence that God directly observed and designed our universe has a "religion," and that belongs outside.

But is this really adequate education? And who's being narrow-minded now?

WALTER BJORCK

Concord