*'''Delete''' This is a very bad page, even though it was probably started with the best of intentions. I am a staunch believer in evolution, but this is obscene. Many of the questions have serious issues within them, including answers that essentially steamroll out any idea that opposing views will never gain any merit within the article.

Issues that are present within the page:
:Question one: "Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution."
::Yes, there may be significant consensus that evolution exists, but we have an extreme liberal bias on certain articles, and essentially stating that we will not give any credence to it shows that we have no tolerance for anyone who is opposing this viewpoint. We are an encyclopedia, and we should allow for the input of others, no matter how much we may disagree with their views. Heck, we don't even mention creationism or intelligent design until the last paragraph of the article, something which shows that there is a push to erase it from history altogether.
:Question two: "Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view."
::Okay, so it is uncontroversial. Does that mean that we should only mention the controversy once? No! There is a casual mention of the controversy surrounding evolution at the second to last paragraph. There should be a whole section about this, in reality. So what if we have a page. It would not hurt to place a section summarizing said page within the article so that people are informed that there is a controversy surrounding evolution.
:Question three
::This whole question talks about and addresses the issue of whether or not it is a theory or fact. Indeed, it is a fact, but this is used as an excuse to not address the issue of whether or not others view it as a theory which might have holes within it.
:Question four
::Again, as with question four, it is being used as a reason to not include the other side’s argument, although terms like this, “In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well-supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution,” show a point of view that mention that others disagree with the theory.
:Question seven
::“To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims.” That is one hell of a point-of-view statement right there, and totally discounts the views of people who believe otherwise. I also find this statement problematic for its wording issues: “This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.”
:Question eight
::This whole answer does not even address the question and completely excludes the fact of how DNA and other things could just form out of happenstance.

In the end, this entire page needs to go, because it is being used by people with point-of-view issues to silence a minority on the site. In the real world, there are a hell of a lot of people who believe in evolution, and if the leading encyclopedia does not mention any of their view, we have more issues than just a liberal problem. ~~~~