Vandalism on B-theory of time 

It seems perhaps I have been going about this the wrong way, so I will try to be helpful and explain WHY your last edit was vandalism.

First off, the description intro, the quality of the intro had been greatly increased, Naming McTaggart as the founder is just repeating was is in the origin section, hence there is no need for it. The description gave a better just of what B-thoery of time is a whole. Undoing this completely is therefore vandalism, ESPECIALLY if you don'y first talk about it in the talk page before editing.

Secondly, you removed 'description', you then deleted the description as in metaphysics, changed the better, updated version of the physics part, then moved it in the origin section. There really is nothing I can say about this, I have no idea what kind of twisted reasoning could be behind that move?!....

Thirdly you removed this section: It is noted by Dean Zimmerman in 'Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold' that A-theory is 'almost certainly a minority view among philosophers', while B-theory has 'achieved broad acceptance'.http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/Presentism%20and%20Rel.for.Web.2.pdf
It seems you perhaps have a personal agenda, favouring A-theory therefore editing in favour of it, this is not allowed on wikipedia, and it is vital to keep a Neutral point of view. The above statement however, is correct and cannot be removed simply because you do not want people to see it.

Finally, and on the most relevant side, you Craig information, it is an improvement that you have put the Craig talk in an oppose section as opposed to to the description section.
However a lot of it is not quoted, rather you have stated the opposition as out right fact. Such as...

"The B-Theory suffers the same incoherence as all theories that time is illusory, namely, that an illusion or appearance of becoming involves becoming, so that becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming." You stated this outright. This is an OPINION of Craig's it should be demonstrated as such, I also do not believe it belongs on the page and it is an obvious dig at another religion. 
In fact you have stated all of Craig's OPINIONS as fact.

If you want to make edits, please first discuss them in the talk page, and we can talk about whether it is relevant or not, and how it should be worded.
DocHeuh