Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world.
Graham, Even though it is not exactly a secret society(perhaps it should be), the Discovery Institute, and in particular its 'Wedge' strategy, could be viewed as an attempt to counteract the Dawkins atheistic movement. I just viewed part of the "Intelligent Design on Trial" video by PBS(2007). In it, the ID movement, and specifically Michael Behe, were equated with Creationists, and ID branded as a religious doctrine. Behe was not given opportunity to rebut the arguments, such as the mousetrap analogy(all parts have to be present in order for function to proceed) where the demonstrator took the bar and bait pan from the trap and made it a tie clip. This doesn't prove anything, or discredit the analogy to living systems; after all, the demonstrator didn't show the tie clip had adaptive value, and sure didn't catch any mice with it! Jonathan Black was right when he said that your site here is one of the most important of all the forums, and that it stands as a place where free expression of these issues is encouraged. The above video also tried to cast the Discovery Institute as a group wanting to throw the scientific world back to the days before Darwin, and establish religious hegemony over the pursuit of truth. The documentary(sic) made no mention of the monopoly evolutionary science claims to have on the truth, or the religious fervor the proponents bring to their arguments. I, for one, happen to think that Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, in "Forbidden Archaeology", showed how evolution came to be established as it is, by many acts of deceit, fakery, fraud, and by covering up(as best they could) any evidence that didn't agree with the accepted theory. I can't see how anyone, after reading that book, could possibly believe in anything evolutionists have to say. To all the hoopla raised by the evolutionists, who claim there is no viable scientific theory to replace theirs, I say, "If the Emporer has no clothes, he has no clothes!" Just because I can disprove a theory, the evidence is no less valid if I don't propose a counter-theory. If science is the search for truth, how can those who feel they already know the truth, be our best guides? This digression on my part may be a reaction to the title of Mr. Black's book: Secret History. So much 'history', especially in the realms of science, and archaeology in particular, has been secret, only brought to light by the determination and perseverence of authors such as yourself, Cremo and Behe. I think this struggle boils down to basically the establishment vs. free thinkers. We know the establishment is out to preserve itself and its views, and we know that it has done this at the expense of the truth, one example being the use of Haekel's drawings(faked) in college embryology textbooks to illustrate evolution, when the scientific community had known for decades the drawings were faked, and convicted Haekel of fraud in a scientific court in Jena, Switzerland, around the turn of the 20th century. It was a creationist, by the way, not a mainstream scientist, who pointed this out to Jay Gould, of Harvard. He affirmed that he had known this fact for some time, and said even though it was in the texts, not many educators used it any more in discussing evolution. Yeah, just like they don't use the peppered moth(faked, staged photos of moths on tree trunks) story either! Not! I can't claim to know the truth ,but I know evolution is NOT it, so I can refine my search to seek out other explanations for how we came to be as we are. with the greatest respect, Rick Dullum