Claims of Non-Neutrality from the Non-Neutral, a.k.a., Double-Standards for Darwin 

Hello,

I'm writing to report a case of non-neutrality from the user . After editing the page on Irreducible complexity to make it more neutral, my changes were reverted, and I received the following message from the aforementioned user:

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Irreducible complexity appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. ID and the like is virtually universally disregarded and is not taken seriously by the scientific community. To say that only "some" of the scientific community is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position, a position based on theology, not science SÆdon 

I'm fairly new here to Wikipedia, but I understand the basic rules regarding article editing, particularly involving mandatory neutrality. I'm confident that none of my additions were non-neutral in any way which biased the article. They were criticisms of criticisms of irreducible complexity  precisely the sort of thing expected for a neutral, fair-and-balanced article on irreducible complexity. Surely neutrality requires that both arguments for and against controversial ideas be presented, no? What the actions of SÆdon and the other watchdogs of any article involving the Darwinian evolution vs. intelligent design controversy say is that only one side of the issue, theirs, deserves to be presented. This is textbook neutrality  exactly what Wikipedia strives to avoid.

Notice the non-neutrality in Saedon's message:

ID and the like is virtually universally disregarded and is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

This is an example of either dishonesty of ignorance on Saedon's part. Intelligent design is one of the hottest topics in science today precisely because it is taken seriously by the so-called "scientific community." They take it seriously because it's a very powerful, evidence-based argument that poses a great threat to the current orthodoxy, Darwinian evolution. This is why Saedon and the like watch over any and all articles regarding this debate, making sure they remain heavily biased towards Darwinian evolution, while reverting both arguments for I.D. and criticisms of criticisms against I.D., as happened in my case.

To say that only "some" of the scientific community is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position, a position based on theology, not science

To say that only "some" of the scientific community views I.D. as pseudoscience is a factual statement. While they may be in the minority, there are many members of the scientific community who agree wholeheartedly that I.D. is science. To close your eyes, shove your fingers in your ears, and pretend that these scientists do not exist  as Saedon has done  is intellectual dishonesty. To then permeate Wikipedia with that intellectual dishonesty is unacceptable. Notice, too, Saedon's non-neutral opinion that intelligent design is theology, rather than science.

I refute that claim.

I'm atheist regarding the Gods of any organized religion, and yet I fully accept the scientific-basis of intelligent design. It's no more theological than is big bang cosmology, or even its counterpart, Darwinian evolution. While all three views may have (a)theistic implications, the argumentation and observation behind all three are strictly secular and scientific. For Saedon to baldly assert that intelligent design is theology, and use this bald assertion to further justify his non-neutrality, watchdog-like behavior is unacceptable.

I expect this situation to be dealt with accordingly; fairly, without bias, and absent bald assertions and loaded claims that encourage, if not outright justify, that bias.

Thank you.