== Large-scale edits & reverts == 

 I think that it's time to ask for page protection on this.  There seem to be three main protagonists: 
 #VorpalBlade insists on adding material, such as a reference to Darwin, that Ungtss and Ian Pitchford both maintain is irrelevant, and also holds that the fact that he has worked hard on the summary means that it shouldn't be changed. 
 #Ungtss doesn't do much editing, but spends time on the Talk page sniping at Ian Pitchford and me, and pretending to want neutrality while arguing solely on one side of the issue. 
 #Ian Pitchford is adding large amounts of material on the basis that the article had been slowly changed to a non-PoV position, doing little more than present TTC's beliefs and aims.  He (alone among the three, so far as I can tell) doesn't pretend to be neutral; he claims to be making the article neutral. 
 I suggest that the article is left alone until the issues have been sorted out here.  Ungtss has said that criteria for relevance should be agreed upon, and that would seem to be a reasonable start. 

 There are, for example, references to what was said in the 19th century, supposedly backing up what we should say about evolution and palæontology now, references to an unsourced, unverified Chinese person making general and unargued claims about the attitude to Darwin in the U.S., and a reference to Dobzhansky from The American Biology Teacher talking about the nature of modern biology. 

 It's difficult to see how the first is relevant.  Biology has moved on considerably since the time of Darwin, modern evolutionary theory is very different from Darwin's.  His own comment ("The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained") is simply quoted without explanation as to what he was talking about, or how such problems are now seen. 

 The second is relevant, if somewhat on the fringes (the opinion of one unnamed Chinese palæontologist), but suffers from being unsourced and unverified.  (It also looks rather odd from European countries, given that Darwin is more attacked and questioned in the U.S. than just about anywhere else in the world.) 

 The last is surely the easiest; in an article about a group concerned with the modern teaching of biology in the U.S., a citation from a journal devoted to teaching biology in the U.S. is clearly relevant, as is more generally a quotation about modern biology.  It was much too long; it's probably now about right. 

 With regard to quotations, those from Phillip E. Johnson are rather long; I haven't checked the copyright status, but as they stand they certainly go beyond the normal guidelines for fair use. 

 Could agreements or disagreements with these points be stated here before edits are made to the article?