https://substack.com/home/post/p-210097694
I need to carve out some time next weekend to watch this.
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Probability Zero
https://substack.com/home/post/p-218941101
" YouTube creator Gutsick Gibbon, joined by Dr. Hanson, released a video running roughly three and a half hours that responds to Day’s case. Erika (Gutsick Gibbon) said on camera that she hadn’t read the book and was responding to a presentation by Will Duffy. Within days, she announced she would read it, assemble friends with relevant training, and take it apart at a roundtable. She also asked anyone with a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate who had reviewed Day’s work to post their credentials and a “favorite blunder” for use in a coming video. A headcount of degrees isn’t a rebuttal, but it seems to be more of an abject panic as she doesn’t seem to have the confidence to simply rebut the material herself: the effort is going into organizing a response before the argument itself has been engaged. This isn’t the way science is supposed to be conducted; she’s urging the community to create consensus that the theory is wrong before even reading it, to come up with reasons why later. It shows how corrupt the scientific field is in real time, something Day has been demonstrating for years and now has solid proof that this is how they act because of his book."
Many people on the left have a reverence for science that borders on worship. "Trust the Science", they say. It's "peer reviewed" they say. Then we see how little that actually means in real life. Climate models built on skewed or inaccurate data, "cigarettes are healthy", eggs are bad, raw milk is bad, Pluto is/isn't a planet, "social distancing", the COVID vaccine is perfectly safe, and Haekel's embryos to name a few. Well qualified scientists pushed from academia because they don't to the line, financial gain for those that do. Papers that got through the "peer review" process base on entirely made up data. The list goes on and on. Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for science as as long as it's engaged in honestly. Excluding data from consideration, or falsifying data, seems problematic.
So, what we have here is a mathematician who's written a book, based on publicly available data, which seems to confirm that Evolution has a statistical probability of (essentially) zero. The hysterical response to the book is what has me interested. That people in the Evolution community are setting out to discredit this book before they've even read is seems to indicate a significantly high degree of fear that he might be right.
Should this work go unchallenged, of course not. Should it be approached in a neutral and unbiased manner and studied carefully before jumping to conclusions? That seems to be kind of a minimum starting point. From what I understand, the data has been available and accepted for a long time, and math is math. So it should be relatively easy for people to raise objections based on the data or the math, and the author should have the freedom to respond.
This looks like a witch hunt.
Maybe A Bit Of Hyperbole, Along WIth Some Wisdom
https://substack.com/home/post/p-220316434
"The usual view, which I share, is that Democrats are crazy and dangerous, while most Republicans elected to public office are much better, because they’re merely weak and empty and they never want to do anything. Between weirdo communists and an empty suit, man, take the empty suit."
"Of course you can find disappointments. I’ve never expected any politician to do everything I want. But Trump strikes me as the least disappointing political figure in at least forty years.
He’s imperfect, but he’s the human in the zombie film. When he’s gone, it’s right back to midget wrestling. Talk me out of it."
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184908853
" What makes them uniquely annoying is their persistent refusal to acknowledge how sanctimonious they come across to the rest of the world. As far as they’re concerned, they are the only intelligent and moral group of people, and they will eventually get what they want by scolding everybody else into submission.
People hate this, because people would actually prefer bigotry to infantilization — but the affluent white woman, by virtue of being affluent, never has to reality test her beliefs against the real world."
https://edokwin.substack.com/p/progressives-must-apologize-before?r=28q7xt&utm_medium=ios
"The only hope for this movement, which has been the vanguard of leftism for most of my adult life, is to moderate and make massive mea culpas. I am not optimistic on either front however. The only thing worse than its terrible track record is the constant gaslighting about it.
The same dynamic plays out everywhere progressives claim to have moderated. On crime. On education. On speech. They adjust their language just enough to avoid total campaigning disasters and PR implosions, but they never question the core conviction that animates everything they do: We are the moral vanguard, and opposition to our program stems from bigotry, ignorance, or malice".
"Until progressives actually abandon this worldview—until they apologize for their excesses, reform their institutions, and rebuild relationships with the moderate majority—the reactionary tide will continue rising. The far right will keep winning. And progressives will have no one to blame but themselves.
The time for reckoning is now. Before it’s too late."
"Here’s what people like Harris, and also Andrew Sullivan, understand that most progressive critics miss: The problem isn’t just that progressives got specific policies wrong. It’s that they’ve constructed an entire worldview in which very basic things most human beings take for granted are deemed “fundamentally and morally wrong.”
That foreigners are not citizens, and citizens’ interests come first. That children are not adults capable of consenting to irreversible medical procedures. That rapid demographic transformation of neighborhoods affects quality of life. That borders serve legitimate functions. That merit matters. That parents have primary authority over their children’s education and upbringing. And that the wrongness of racism & sexism leave no space for social justice carveouts; racism against Asians, Europeans, and Jews is still racism, sexism against men (misandry) is still sexism, and so forth.
These aren’t fringe positions held by extremists. They’re baseline assumptions held by overwhelming majorities across every Western, liberal democracy. And progressives have spent fifteen years treating people who hold these views as moral monsters. They are a political movement that has played footsie with far left extremism for ages, and which believes radical, revolutionary social change is not only permissible but necessary, even against the wishes of the voting public."
"There’s a reason progressives can’t actually moderate, even when they claim that they want to. It’s embedded in the worldview itself. In the critical theory framework that undergirds modern progressivism, all opposition is rooted in “white supremacy,” “patriarchy,” or other forms of structural oppression. This means opponents cannot be reasoned with—because reason itself is a tool of oppression. They can only be opposed, canceled, or demonized.
When Ta-Nehisi Coates says “conversation between [them] and me is probably not possible,” regarding people who disagree on transgender or racial policy, he’s not just being intransigent, he’s being honest. He’s being consistent with critical theory epistemology. If your position stems from structural bigotry rather than legitimate disagreement, what’s there to discuss? You don’t debate with bigots; you defeat them. (“By any means necessary,” said Malcolm X.)"
"This is why Coates can claim that Charlie Kirk’s public life was defined by “hate”—despite Kirk engaging opponents, debating them publicly, and building a massive following through persuasion rather than coercion or violence. To progressives steeped in critical theory, none of that matters. Kirk opposed progressive positions, therefore he was motivated by hate. And, by extension, his life was forfeit. (Although Klein rejected that extreme at least, and Coates mouthed platitudes about disliking murder generally.)
One doesn't have to agree with Kirk’s views, or even his approach to right-wing activism, to recognise his assassination, a deliberately political assassination by a far left individual with strong ties to the trans movement, was beyond unacceptable. That the harassment and murder of anyone for their views, even an actual racist (which Kirk wasn't), is unacceptable. That the type of people progressivism holds up as evil are, all too often assaulted or murdered (because any amount, beyond none, of such politically motivated crimes is too high).
This framework is politically suicidal. Democracy requires the possibility of persuasion. It assumes that people with different views might be convinced through argument, evidence, and appeals to shared values. Critical theory denies this possibility. It treats political opponents as irredeemable carriers of systemic oppression who must be defeated, not persuaded.
So when progressives lose—when Trump wins, when Reform surges, when voters reject them—they can’t respond with introspection or genuine course correction. Their framework doesn’t allow for “maybe we got it wrong” or “maybe they have a point.” It only allows for “the bigots won” and “we didn’t fight hard enough.”
This is the deep structure underneath all the rhetorical repositioning. Progressives will adjust their language because they understand electoral annihilation is bad. But they cannot question the core premise: that they are on the side of justice fighting forces of oppression, and opposition to them stems from moral failure."
The above quotes sound pretty much exactly like Dan, don't they?
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
This Seems Like It Should Be Bigger News
https://substack.com/home/post/p-204964578
This is a long piece, but interesting. The fact that the state of CA is on the path to remove a hydroelectric power source, increase flooding and flood damage in the rainy seasons, and dry rivers on the summer all seem like really bad things. Yet, it appears that political and financial gain for the rich and powerful are more important than the safety and livelihood of CA citizens. How much federal taxpayer money will it take to clean up the messes left by floods and fires or to support those who lose everything?
Nothingburger
There is quite the uproar from Omar fans about the DOJ raid on her DC home, specifically over the proximity to the election. Don't worry, a little immigration fraud, or additional connection to one or more of the 9 billion dollars in fraud isn't enough to keep her district from voting for her. Omar could literally strangle her children one at a time, and they'd still vote for her. This isn't going to affect the election at all. If she is convicted at some point in her term, she'll be replaced by another one just like her.
I am curious though. If oppression and genocide are bad, why was Omar's family allowed to immigrate here in the first place?
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Well...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-uncomfortable-subject-jesus-addressed-more-than-anyone-else/
"A friend once challenged me to show her where Jesus talks about hell in the Gospels. Even a cursory read-through shows Jesus talked about it plenty. In fact, Jesus talked about hell more than any other person in the Bible. In , he describes a great chasm over which “none may cross from there to us.” In , Jesus tells of a time when people will be separated into two groups, one entering into his presence, the other banished to “eternal fire.” Jesus doesn’t only reference hell, he describes it in great detail. He says it is a place of eternal torment (), of unquenchable fire (), where the worm does not die (), where people will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (), and from which there is no return, even to warn loved ones (). He calls hell a place of “outer darkness” (), comparing it to “Gehenna” (), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and maggots abounded. Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned about the absolute reality of hell."
https://tbn.uk/jesus-top-5-teaching-topics/
The Kingdom of YHWH
YHWH The Father
Faith
Money
Sin/Satan
https://ayebeleef.design.blog/2020/08/13/some-statistics-of-jesus-words/
https://thechristianexile.com/2024/04/27/what-jesus-talked-about-the-most/
AI Summary FWIW
Key Details
- The Central Theme: Across the Gospels (especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke), nearly every major sermon, teaching, and parable points back to the reality, arrival, and nature of God's kingdom.
- Opening Message: In Mark 1:15, Jesus summarizes His entire public ministry with: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel".
- Common Misconception: Many people hear the claim that Jesus spoke about money more than anything else because 11 of His parables involve finances. However, scholars and resources like RELEVANT point out that money was typically used as an illustration or metaphor rather than the core subject—for comparison, food appears in even more parables
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)