I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the religion of evolution, not the science of evolution. Certainly, scientifically speaking, evolution has falsifiable predictions; not that it matters to the zealots.

You contradict yourself. You seem to believe by faith that there is no substantive research possible toward creationism.

Tens to hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the ages have devoted considerable portions of their lives in the study of God and creationism, yet secular scholars of today refuse to even examine the evidence or even acknowledge its existence.

Wow, a rational response in this thread; nice to see.

I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor.

I'm always amazed that those who would consider themselves "quality thought-leaders" need to resort to name-calling to discuss evolution. It's no different than the Slate article; why bother with facts when propaganda will do?

As a creationist with a scientific background, I don't have a problem with either Evolution per se or abiogenesis per se. Science is merely observing and attempting to explain with a best-fit model what is seen -- what's wrong with that?

Instead, I have a problem with the religion of Evolution/abiogenesis and the battle of its priests against the church. I'm not claiming all or even most scientists fall into this realm, but the vast majority of the vocal anti-creationism crowd certainly does.

A falsifiable theory wouldn't need religious zealots for its defense. Q.E.D.

What a fitting signature.

How cute, you think evolution is falsifiable.

Who knows that it actually says in the context. You certainly can't expect Slate to be forthcoming when it's trying to incite the masses.

It might say, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" is the first sentence of the Bible. In the section below, explain why you do or do not consider this to be a valid theory for how life came to Earth".

When technical stories are posted that have crappy summaries (and articles) like this one, out come the internet sleuths to show that the real story is something altogether different.

But apparently obviously quarter-truth stories like this one get a free pass, because it's always in style to "come for the Socialists/Jews".

Just because this textbook teaches that there exist alternate theories to evolution doesn't make it bad. It's funny that "information wants to be free" until it's information you disagree with.

Wake me when the 4K Oculus Rift is available.

There's no such thing as a secure password that's been in use for 30 or 40 years.

So get the ad companies to serve the ads over HTTPS... I don't see the big deal.

The summary is talking about survey results, and uses both "male" and "female" equally, which are common language in surveys.

Please women -- we'd love to have more of you in our industry, but claiming gender insensitivity where there is none truly just makes men afraid to even interact with you, lest they be labelled misogynist and slammed all over social media.

Of course, we have miles to go when it comes to better respecting women in technology; but the article summary isn't one of them.

Please do -- Anaerin's mockup is SOOO much closer to what a Slashdot redesign should look like:

* 100% width
* Familiar green headings on comment's, which give Slashdot its distinctive "Slashdot" feel
* Possible to read nested comments

Although it still misses comment filtering, and the comments don't start until half-way down the page, it's a lot more promising than the current unusable-comment-section beta!

Define "right" and "left".