Ray says:

Andrew,

Your USA Today column (cyberSpeak) will be missed…
Fortunately, I subscribe to the RSS feed
at “Andrew Kantor’s Place”.
Read it and enjoy it every day!

Keep up the good work,
Ray
SF

Leland says:

Sorry to see your column leave the pages of USA today. I looked forward to reading them. Your column about Julie Amero was instrumental in stopping an enormous miscarriage of justice.

Christian says:

Regarding your last article: You’ve got some good points about how technology is viewed to be the blame for all our ills, photography rights, and bloggers taking a stand–there is a seemingly one-sided view of these things in the mainstream media! However, when you bash creationism (and use childish terms like “dimwits” of all things) you don’t really seem credible in your statements (really, “dimwits”?).

Have you done any research to see whether evolution is true, or have you just taken what the education system says? Have you done any research into what the creation museum says (or reading the Bible for that matter), or are you just reacting to the creationist stereotypes? You may be surprised to find out the Truth if you did your own reaserch on both sides of the matter before writing such an uninformed and scathing article.

Leland says:

Lets see now… Christian wants us to close our eyes to reams of peer reviewed scientific research supporting evolution so we can see The Truth.

Right, I got it now… :P

Emily says:

And, Christian, if I said yes, I have done research into evolution, seen what the creation museum has to offer, and read the Bible and have come to the conclusion that the creationists are still childish dimwits, would you respect my right to that belief?

Gnomic says:

Dimwits is probably a better term than the one I use - fuknutz. We’re talking about a group that doesn’t understand science and doesn’t want to unless it proves their faith. Which of course abuses the whole concept of “faith.” These aren’t Christians - they are a group of people who what to piss in everyone else’s Wheaties to show how powerful their god is. The don’t actually want to follow the words of Christ so much as stuff His mouth full of their idiot beliefs. They are the scourge of science, Christians, and Americans and are nothing more than a cult that once again has taken power while true conservatives stand idoly by (no, that one isn’t a typo).

The sad thing is that like most cults, they are too stupid and deluded to know the difference.

Gnomic says:

BTW, Andrew - what’s next now that you aren’t writing for McPaper?

Andrew says:

Gotta couple of possibilities, but my big focus is on my day job. As I used to tell folks, the Roanoke Times pays the mortgage — USA Today just bought the beer. I think I might stick to the occasional one-off freelance gigs as they come up.

I’m also about to start shopping a book idea around, but that’s always a crap shoot. And, of course, there’s this place. I’m hoping to be blogging a lot more, and doing some site tweaks. Gotta make sure it’s iPhone compatible, you know! :)

Leland says:

When you are a rich and famous book author, will you remember us little people?

Rob says:

it’s obvious you have no scientific background. Good riddens to you in USA Today. Maybe as a reporter you should research the facts yourself instead of just re-reading what everyone else writes. Why don’t you interview these thousands of scientists ( or just a few ) from both sides and then apply your logical thoughts. Obvious that you a just another Creationist basher. If you notice the trends around the world, evolutionists are admitting their science is flawed. Study the facts before writing. I bet you stand next to Al Gore and support his global warming theory too.

Andrew says:

No no no, Rob — I don’t think global warming is real. Like you, I think the vast majority of scientists (the ones who agree that it is real and that it’s man made) are part of a conspiracy. They’re probably working with the Darwinists.

I’m with you: The only truth is in the Bible, and I don’t care how many times it’s been edited and retranslated and cut and reinterpreted. It’s the infallible word of God. Now pardon me while I talk to my neighbor. We have to arrange to stone his daughter.

Rob says:

As a typical newspaper columnist would do, you don’t answer the real points of my comments, just the last one. By the way, if you throw the first stone at your neighbors daughter, is it really murder? Or is it just part of evolutionary thinking since morals and values developed over millions of years anyway? And where do your morals and value system come from? Isn’t it just based on survival of the fittest? If it is, then you can do whatever you want, there are no real consequences. So go ahead, throw it. You can come back in the next life and try to get it right next time.

Gnomic says:

Rob,

I do have a science background, as well as a religious one. Creationism is damn fine foolishness and enough people believe it that it is a religion, but it isn’t science. Science requires that any theory must be able to be proven or disproven; the claptrap that these IDiots have come up with is so stupid and contradictory that it doesn’t mean this standard. Believe it if you want, but don’t pretend its science.

And you don’t make any point in your post; so there isn’t anythign to respond to.

Gnomic says:

It occurs to me that the surest sign that there must be a god is that the human race has survived this long despite these damn fools.

Christian says:

Emily - you are free to believe what you want as well as mock what I believe. It seems like all the comments here against creationism have a vehement hatred for those who believe creationism (demonstrated by the namecalling). It’s a shame no one can discuss this topic maturely through a logical discourse instead of on the platform “you are an idiot, therfore my position is valid”.

Gnomic - please specify the contradictions you are refering to.

Rob - great point. If survival of the fittest is how the world works (which flies in the face of morals), then shouldn’t the weakest in our society be eliminated also? In fact, you will find this thought was propogated by H.G. Wells, a contemporary of Darwin.

Emily says:

Christian, if it were possible to discuss your position using logic, I would be happy to do so.

lionemom says:

Christian, first of all, equating name-calling with hatred is not a valid comparison. If I think you are dumb it doesn’t mean I hate you, it means I think you are dumb.

Second, you call Andrew’s article uninformed and scathing. You are assuming, after asking what it’s now clear are merely rhetorical questions, that Andrew has NOT done any research, not read the Bible and hasn’t made up his mind based on the results of such research. You don’t know him, you are, yourself, making assumptions without having done any research. You are assuming that he, a journalist, is just jumping on the sensationalist, creationism-bashing bandwagon without knowing where he is coming from. He didn’t have to write where he was coming from in his article, it was HIS ARTICLE. But if you are going to make assumptions about his character based on opinions expressed in one article that he wrote, don’t you think that is just as judgmental as you accuse him of being?

Third, you are CLEARLY missing Emily’s point if you believe she is mocking you.

lionemom says:

p.s. Christian, survival of the fittest is how the animal kingdom - the ENTIRE animal kingdom - works. The weak, the sick and the less intelligent are the ones that fall prey to whatever prey animal is their next step up on the food chain. THAT is scientific FACT, proven by the example of hundreds and thousands of species repeating the same patterns over and over again. Not some wacky theory that a fiction author came up with and some folks just thought it was “neat” to believe it too.

gnomic says:

Just FYI - The bible doesn’t mention creationism beyond God created heavens and earth. Note that it doesn’t say “and designed it so nothing evolved.” The fallicy is that God created everything perfect and evolution isn’t necessary. That is a stupid human assertion.

I have read how evolution works (the books with the big words, not just the caroons that ID advocates hand out) as well as must of the nonsence ID published ( as much as I could stomach). MY conclusions:
ID advocates do not understand the basic premise of science and science theory. Science cannot prove or disprove God.
ID misapplies science to come to incorect conclusions. Ireducible complixity is a good example. The phelgelim is “irreducably complex” thefore it proves ID. 1) the phelgelim has 4 parts. I can theortically design one in 2 parts. Therefore if ID rests upon this assumption, it is wrong. and 2) if it is - or isn’t “irreducably complex” it no more proves god did or didn’t design the universe anymore than it the sky is blue becuase there is no causual relationship.

IDiots like to claim that all evolution is adaption and that evolution violates thermodynamics. First off, thermodynamics is an engineering principle, not a biology principle. Second, if 2 simple things can’t combine to create a more complex thing, PLASTIC — which takes simpler hydrocarons (the same stuff people are made of) and combines them into a more cmoplex chain using simple chemistry — doesn’t exist. And thats just essential2stupid.

So don’t tell me I don’t get it. Go believe in your religion; that’s fine with most of us. Just quit telling me that evolution is false because youv’e joins some cult of IDiots that believe the world is flat. ID isn’t science and never will be true no matter what rooftops you shout it from.

So while you are up there… JUMP! (and ask God to clue you in on what He actually said and what a bunch of fuknuts came up with in His name)

Anonymous says:

Christian, at the worst, it is impolite for me to mock what you believe. I apologize for being rude, but as lionemom points out, it is incorrect for you to equate that rudeness with hatred.

I think you are ignorant. Furthermore, it seems that you remain ignorant through you insistence on attributing things many of us don’t fully comprehend to a supreme being. My understanding of science takes me far past the implications of intelligent design. I’m still free to believe in a god if I wish, it’s just that my god is far more intelligent than that of the creationists.

Anonymous says:

That’s a good point gnomic. If those who collaborated on the Bible had had the benefit of a modern education, they undoubtedly would have come up with a more plausible story. You can’t really fault them for their ignorance. On the other hand, it’s inexcusable today to base even a religion on the knowledge of 4000 years ago.

I ask creationists this: If God is omnipotent and supreme, why did she do such a piss poor job of creation?

Emily says:

Those two anonymous posts just above are mine. I get used to the auto fill stuff just working and didn’t notice that I had done something to clear the fields.

Suzanne says:

Just because the theory of evolution doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean it’s instantly wrong. It certainly makes more sense to me than ID. You can’t prove or disprove God until He shows up Himself and kicks us all in the butt for being a bunch of belligerent wankers.

For all we know, the Giant Spotted Weasels in the Sky sneezed and created Earth and everything on it. Maybe we’re all wrong and Giant Spotted Weaselism is the way to go.

Emily says:

That sounds like something from HHGTTG. Actually, Adams comes up with some pretty plausible alternatives to Christianity. Maybe he should be required reading for creationists.

Hank Carr says:

A mistake (giving them the benefit of the doubt) that the religiously fanatical in the United States often make is to carefully choose which definition of “theory” they argue.

“An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

However, when referring to a scientific “theory” you must use the scientific definition.

“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

I wonder how these fanatics feel about the theory of flight?

Hank.

P.S. Yes, I DID mean to use “religiously fanatical” and in general terms include anyone who believes that everything was created in six days a few thousand years ago by God as well as the nearly 25% of the US population that believes that Christ will return in 2007 (who are incidentally the same 25% that believe that he would return in 2006 and the same 25% that will believe that he will return in 2008 when be doesn’t return in 2007.) These are also the people who deny climate change since the 600,000 year record was obviously created by God to test our faith and the rapture is going to happen in the next year or so so who the hell cares what happens to the earth after that, they’ll be in heaven enjoying eternal paradise. H.

jim says:

andrew, too bad your blog about your last article at usatoday somehow became a debate about the afterlife. i’d like to get back to the point and say THANKS! - for great articles, clarity, fresh ideas, and occassionally helping people get it right. you’re not perfect. but who is?(no, that’s not an invitation to the afterlife debaters). why usatoday would choose to not use you is a puzzler. jim