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 S don 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 S don 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