Phillip Johnson is the proclaimed leader of the Intelligent Design Movement. Oddly enough, he is not a scientist, but a lawyer who has political ties in Washington. His main goal is to remove the theory of evolution from the science curriculum in our schools. I recently e-mailed him a list of ten questions about the ID movement (below). An associate of his, took the time to respond with his consent.

I did not include the entire exchange, it did not stay pleasant for long, and that is not the message I want to get across here. The main, more civil points are all here unedited. For the record, she admitted to me that she is a former school teacher and an anti-evolution Creationist. She submitted to me an example of the Creationist tactics she used to confuse children in our schools about the validity of theory of evolution.

Sir, Phillip Johnson asked several of us if we would like to take the time for these questions. Here are some responses which Phil agrees with and which may help clarify issues:

(Click on the highlighted numbers for her response to my questions)

1) What is the actual scientific theory of Intelligent Design? Is it simply, "Complexity implies design and design implies intelligence"?

2) Does Intelligent Design support theistic evolution or special creation? Does it support both?

3) When I hear that the goal of ID is to defeat "Darwinism", what exactly does that mean? Does it mean the theory of evolution through natural selection (in favor of theistic evolution)? evolution in general (in favor of special creation)? or the philosophy that Darwin's theory has inspired (Modernism)?

4) Do you see ID as more of a scientific theory or a philosophy?

5) What is the philosophy behind ID? Is it the belief that all things are created by an intelligent agent?

6) If the intelligent agent isn't God what else could it be?

7) How many non-Christian scientists are involved with the ID movement? Can you name at least three for me please?

8) How many non-American scientists are involved with the ID movement? Can you name at least three for me please?

9) If ID is a philosophy that drives science forward, why can't it co-exist with naturalism? Why does it have to be "either/or"?

10) Why should science have an opinion about Gods existence? Isn't agnosticism more favorable and less biased and therefore more likely to uncover the truth?