User talk:Tesmart

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to William A. Dembski, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Phillip E. Johnson. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was editing them by removing biases from a description of the author. Please reinstate the changes.

Tesmart (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. Per our policy on neutral point of view, we are required to represent topics as they are found in the relevant scholarly material.  Intelligent design and all its opponents have zero credibility in the scientific community.  It's a political strategy designed to inject religion into educational settings.  The scientific community clearly sees intelligent design as nothing more than creationism in a cheap suit, with no scientific merit despite being spun by Johnson, Dembski and Meyer as an ostensibly scientific theory.  Neutral doesn't mean conciliatory, positive or refusing to state a clear position - neutral means accurately describing what the relevant experts think.  And they all think it's nonsense.  So please cease to make your changes as you are removing the material used to verify the mainstream position.  If you can find reliable sources that discuss the merits of intelligent design you can integrate it.  But you won't, the scientific community universally condemns it.  It's not biased to note that intelligent design is little more than creationism.  It is biased to pretend it's got merit and is actually discussed anywhere but religious revivals.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)