My conflict is with the unjustified elevation to facthood of unverified theories and speculations extracted from the elements of the controversy  Nor am I concerned about my anonymity  It is trivially easy to look me up and I presume that most interested parties here by now know my real name credentials and affiliations  I have used the screen name Moulton since  when I began developing science education resources on the Internet as a member of an educational technology research group funded by the National Science Foundation  The articles I coauthored with Professor Picard were also funded by a grant from the NSF  My allegiance is to the cause of science and science education and that is the role I propose to play here  To keep the peace I will propose below the insertion of an intervening section between the biographical material and the disputatious Darwin Dissent Controversy that some editors here wish to retain on this page with appalling disregard for the ground truth    My concern is that some of the existing material is based on unwarranted assumptions regarding people whose names appeared on the original  untitled twosentence petition  My concern is that the unwarranted assumptions constitute a potentially libelous violation of the WPBLP Do No Harm clause by propagating dubious claims of the DI as if they were established facts  Elsewhere I have managed to highlight the passages where Wikipedia articles have blithely adopted the DIs view of the controversial petition without first examining the evidence for their dubious view with a sufficiently keen and skeptical eye  Please bear with me and extend to me the courtesy of patience and good faith as I am not conversant with all the Wikipedia conventions regarding resolution of disputatious content appearing on the biographies of living persons  Please understand that I am here to work for the betterment of Wikipedia in the name of science science education and science journalism