The page had mentioned criticisms of NDGT with the comment, "Both criticisms — coming primarily from fundamentalist Christians who objected to his activism against their anti-science agenda — were responded to effectively and no one who isn't a religious fundamentalist really buys into them."
Per Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment, I don't think we should include that editorializing. (Some of his critics were *not* "fundamentalist Christians", FWIW.) I restored the neutral description of the criticisms (with links to pages describing two of the controversies); if there's a good page with rebuttals, I think it would make sense to include that, too. But IMO it's not helpful to just say "this is a stupid thing believed by stupid people"... ;-)
The page had mentioned criticisms of NDGT with the comment, "Both criticisms — coming primarily from fundamentalist Christians who objected to his activism against their anti-science agenda — were responded to effectively and no one who isn't a religious fundamentalist really buys into them."
Per Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment, I don't think we should include that editorializing. (Some of his critics were *not* "fundamentalist Christians", FWIW.) I restored the neutral description of the criticisms (with links to pages describing two of the controversies); if there's a good page with rebuttals, I think it would make sense to include that, too. But IMO it's not helpful to just say "this is a stupid thing believed by stupid people"... ;-)
Edited by Narsil