1. What is the theory of Chemical Design? Chemical Design is Science, with a capital S. Chemical Design is the theory that properties of atoms and of molecules are determined by an intelligent cause, not by undirected bonding and molecular interactions. Design Researchers are engaged in an vibrant research effort to empirically detect whether the design apparent in nature, acknowledged by virtually all chemists, is genuine (the product of an intelligent agent) or is simply the product of undirected amoral processes such as chemical periodicity acting on random atoms. Researchers are also determining the flawless aboriginal designs and are elucidating mechanisms and effects of subsequent decay. 2. Is Chemical Design theory the same as Religion? No. Chemical Design theory is not religion. As science, Chemical Design can determine if the natural world is the product of intelligence. As science, Chemical Design cannot address the nature or personality of the intelligent agent. Science cannot determine if the intelligent agent is naughty or nice, smart or thick, honest or deceitful. Proponents of Design Theory are bound by a secret handshake to uphold the following oath: always pretend to hold no opinion on the naughtiness or niceness of the intelligent agent, never in public express any preference for our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.... Maintain that it is of no significance that all proponents of Design Theory are devout Christians. 3. Is Chemical Design based on the Bible? No. Why would you ask that? Remember, it is a coincidence that all proponents of Design Theory are devout Christians. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory. Virtually all scientists, until the latter part of the nineteenth century, accepted some form of design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after Mendeleevists claimed to be able to explain chemical complexity through the unintelligent system of Chemical Periodicity and the Periodic Table. 4. Is Chemical Design theory incompatible with the Periodic Table? It depends on what one means by the words "Periodic Table and Chemical Peridiodicity." If one simply means "atomic interactions, electrostatics and orbitals" or even that atoms may sometimes be held together by bonds, then there is no inherent conflict between Chemical Peridiodicity theory and Chemical Design theory. However, the dominant theory of Chemical Peridiodicity today contends that Chemical Peridiodicity is driven by natural and purposeless interactions and forces that "have no discernable direction or goal, not even synthesis of high molecular weight polymers." (IUPAC Statement on Teaching Chemical Peridiodicity). It is this specific claim made by Mendeleevism that Chemical Design theory directly challenges. 5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support Chemical Design theory? Yes. Chemical Design theory is supported by Institutes with Fellows. Institute Fellows are widely quoted by journalists, most of whom had very bad experiences in high school chemistry, and are seeking revenge. The most famous of these fellows are Dr. Azo Mazur (Biography and important publications, here) and Little Willie Dembski (Biography and important publications, here). Institutes with good funding, spiffy web sites and fellows have helped a growing number of journalists, school boards and politicians to question Mendeleevism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of molecules, ions, crystals, liquids, solids and gases. 6. Do scientists supportive of design publish peer-reviewed articles and research? Yes. Open hostility from Mendeleevists makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas. However, research and articles by Chemical Design scholars are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Azo Mazur has published The Trouble with Guanine, in the Proceedings of the re-Discovery Institute. He has published Experimental Proof of Intelligent Design for the Amateur Scientist, in the Proceedings of the Chemical Society of Pierce County (a peer-reviewed chemistry journal published by the Tacoma Museum of Natural History). Jonathan Wells recently published a pro-Chemical Design article in Retractica di Chemica. Biochemist Michael Behe has defended Irrepressible Stupidity in the journal Tailpipe of Science. 7. Are Intelligent Design Advocates Persecuted in Academia? Yes. Students who discuss intelligent design are ridiculed and condemned at schools and universities. For example Jeremy Warts, a sophomore at the University of Georgia, reported that the intelligent designer caused her reaction yields to be poor, and her laboratory notebook to be incomplete. Hostile Mendeleevists countered that it was poor laboratory technique and generally bad attitude. Her C-minus is an example of anti-Christian persecution by secular academics, and is being publicized by Students for Academic Freedom (here). 8. Should public schools require the teaching of Chemical Design? No. Instead of mandating Chemical Design, the re-Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts Teach the Controversies. Students need to know the truth about Chemical Peridiodicity, including the theory's problems. In other words, Chemical Peridiodicity should be taught as a theory that is subject to critical scrutiny. Chemical Periodicity is a just a theory, not a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

re-Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Tacoma and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse re-Discovery's Web site at:
http://www.re-Discovery.org.