Reports results of experiments that support evolution of complex organs (eyes) from simple cells. Well sourced and presented. but would have been stronger without the unneccesary editorializing against "inytelligent design".

It was a very good story that would have been stronger had the author cited the souces for his own statistics. But his primary point, that the media don't call candidates on blatantly false or unsuported statements is spot on.

What the author only alludes to, and needs to be said explicitly, is that atheism is just as much a position of faith as theism. Neither position can be proven and adherents of both find plenty of evidence in the natural world to confirm their positions. What ought to be taught in science class is science - that which can be potentially falsified by repeatable experiment. What ought to be taught in religion or philosophy class is personal beliefs - about ethics, origins of the universe, origins of life, and rules of righteous behavior. What has to be resisted is the coercion of one group by the other by governmental or other means.

What's in the story is good - it's what is left out that is a problem. What is the critical mass of queries you need pages for in order to make the site worth going to? How long will it take to get there? How much better are their results than Google's? An example would have been illuminating. What is their cost per results page compared with Google and how do they generate the ad income to pay for it?

Good explanation as to the origin of the Shia/Sunni split, but no information as to current differences in belief. Story ends with the statement that almost all current viloence beween the 2 groups is due to actions of Saddam Huesein. Supporting material is warranted and would be very interesting.

negative opinion piece designed to increase readership, not to inform.

Raises legitimate questions with a strong anti-Clinton bias.