Peter Tatchell has a website and you'll find this in his bio,

Involved in the GLF campaign against the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness, in 1972 he was violently manhandled by doctors and psychologists when he disrupted a lecture by one of the world's leading psychiatrists, Professor Hans Eysenck. The professor had endorsed the use of electric-shock aversion therapy to "cure" homosexuals, dismissively claiming that the treatment was no harsher than "a visit to the dentist". As a result of this and similar protests in Harley Street, the medical profession eventually abandoned its pejorative designation of homosexuality.

The leading authority reference here got me thinking to the authorities telling me Intelligent Design isn't science.

I fear the Gods to much to tell them their Intelligent.

I find mystry, not design, in creation.

So while not sure of the science, it seems bad Theology to me.

But when Churchill spoke of his fear Europe ...will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science in June of 1940, he was talking about perverted Biology. The same kind of perverted Biology that empowered a leading Psychiatrist to suggest 'cures' for Homosexuality with a jolt to the brain.

Biologist have allowed their science to be perverted too many times in the past century. Great crimes have been committed with the Biologist's authority.

My kids tell me the ID vs evolution debate does not come up in their classes. What I would prefer they learn in Biology is a bit about William Jennings Bryan and why he opposed Scopes.

Bryan may have got the Science wrong but I'm certain the 20th century would have been different had Biology classes in Germany and Japan begun with some readings of America's William Jennings Bryan.

From Andrew Varnon's Fundamentally Progressive

I may disagree with Bryan on whether or not evolution should be taught in the public schools, but on almost every other issue (save perhaps Prohibition), I find myself thinking, "I'd vote for him." In short, given our current state of politics, he sounds like the kind of guy I'd like to sit on a porch with and ask where it all went wrong.

Bryan's opposition to evolution wasn't separate from his progressive politics. In fact, he saw Darwinism as being part and parcel of the rising laissez-faire capitalism in America. "Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak," he said. That was contrary to the Bible, which he said taught the "law of love." And indeed, it was the social Darwinists who opposed and defeated Bryan in many of his progressive causes, although the battles he begun would later be won by his successors.

I think it all went wrong when the deeper truth (or Law if you like) in Bryan's message was supplanted with an easily perverted Science.

Worlds paid a huge price with trust in leading Scientific authorities.

I'd rather place my trust in a local School Board in Tennessee.