Devastating take-down of Bill Nye, the science guy

_{Vincent Torley

September 29, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Jurisprudence Professor Robert George and bioethicist Patrick Lee have written a devastating take-down of Bill Nye in an article for National Review titled, Back to Science Class for the Science Guy, after Nye published a video on YouTube, claiming to tell us what science says about abortion. As take-downs go, this one is about as good as it gets, and I warmly recommend it to readers. The authors write:

…[H]e (Nye) misrepresents the facts from top to bottom in an embarrassingly transparent effort to hijack science in the cause of pro-abortion ideology.

The authors’ conclusion is also worth quoting:

At several points in his video, Nye expresses frustration with people who don’t share his support for the moral and legal permissibility of abortion. One can, perhaps, be forgiven for indulging a chuckle at his exasperation, given the level of scientific ignorance on display from a guy whose whole message to those he disagrees with is “Listen to me, you rubes; I know the science.”

See also Mollie Hemingway’s highly illuminating article, A Quick And Easy Guide To The Planned Parenthood Videos in the Federalist. Videos are embedded for ease of reference. Well worth reading.

Comments are welcome.

Comments

Barry Arrington: Look up the phrase “rhetorical hyperbole.” Good. Then we agree that there is a process in place to change the law. Barry Arrington: I admit that five members of the Supreme Court have made my compelling legal and popular arguments irrelevant, because they have removed the issue from the people, where it should be. You just agreed that the people have a democratic remedy by amending the constitution. It only takes convincing enough people.Zachriel_{October 2, 2015
October
10
Oct
2
02
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington, seeing as you were deeply involved in the Columbine massacre, this may interest you personally: Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/ Flyleaf - Cassie - Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPL-jKz5Vuwbornagain77_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

LarTanner
You admit you have no compelling legal argument and no compelling popular argument.
I admit no such thing. I admit that five members of the Supreme Court have made my compelling legal and popular arguments irrelevant, because they have removed the issue from the people, where it should be.Barry Arrington_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Z, Look up the phrase "rhetorical hyperbole." You don't seem to understand the concept. Yes, we would have to amend the constitution. That was my point. The Supreme Court has put the matter beyond the political arena absent drastic measures such as that. So your "change minds" canard is exposed as a cynical distraction.Barry Arrington_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

LarTanner: Zachriel, this statement of yours is spot on. The statement was Seversky's. Barry Arrington: I could change the minds of all 310 million Americans save 5 and it would not matter one wit if those 5 constitute a majority on the Supreme Court. That is incorrect. Perhaps you are not familiar with the U.S. legal system. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on constitutional grounds. As such, a change to the U.S. Constitution is required. The process is outlined in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html There have been twenty-seven amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including amendments protecting free speech, abolishing slavery, and enacting women's suffrage. Roe v. Wade allows the states to restrict abortion after viability, as long as there are exceptions to protect the health of the mother.Zachriel_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

It's murder- THAT is the compelling legal argument.Virgil Cain_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

You admit you have no compelling legal argument and no compelling popular argument. Fine, but we knew that already. No need for your confirmation.LarTanner_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Z and LT
If you want to stop abortion, change minds, change the law.
I could change the minds of all 310 million Americans save 5 and it would not matter one wit if those 5 constitute a majority on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has (illegitimately) removed the abortion issue from the political process. You either do not know this, in which case your little jibe can be ascribed to breathtaking ignorance, or you do know this, in which case your jibe is a bad faith pouring of salt on political wounds. Either way, you two don't come out looking too good.Barry Arrington_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, this statement of yours is spot on.
If you want to stop abortion, change minds, change the law.
One imagines that eventually some enterprising jurist/politico will formulate a compelling anti-choice argument that confronts the actual legal issues of reproductive rights. Of course, one shouldn't bet the proverbial farm on it: from Kim Davis to SSM to Dover/Kitzmiller, the 'conservative' track record for cogent arguments has been abysmal .LarTanner_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Andre: So the lady thar wanted to buy a Lamborghini was edited? Crushing above and below to harvest the liver was edited? A matter of lune it’s edited? It’s a boy was edited? The claim concerns illegal sale of fetal tissue. Abortion itself is generally legal. (States may restrict after viability.)Zachriel_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Aah So the lady thar wanted to buy a Lamborghini was edited? Crushing above and below to harvest the liver was edited? A matter of lune it's edited? It's a boy was edited? Zachriel if you are defending this in any way I'm going to call you at as a dispicible human being. Absolutely dispicibleAndre_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

tjguy: Even the investigators rejected the claim that they were heavily edited. "A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html For instance, the depiction of a fetus accompanied by a narrative about abortion was probably a premature delivery. tjguy: "A forensic analysis of undercover videos about Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices are “authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing" Of course they were edited. The edited video cut out exculpatory statements in order to create the false impression that Planned Parenthood engaged in the illegal sale of fetal tissue. Being against abortion is one thing. Deliberately misrepresenting the facts is something else.Zachriel_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @ 16
The videos are very questionable,..."
Why? Even the investigators rejected the claim that they were heavily edited. Have you watched them Zach? What made you think they were questionable? Are you just parroting what others have claimed or do you have inside evidence that the investigators missed on which you base your claim?
A forensic analysis of undercover videos about Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices are “authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing,” according to a report released Tuesday by Alliance Defending Freedom. The analysis was completed by Coalfire, a digital security and forensics firm that has worked on civil and criminal investigations. The firm had access to all audio and video investigative footage recorded by the Center for Medical Progress. "Analysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during the investigation and released by CMP to date and found only bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been removed.” According to the report, the videos only omit footage irrelevant to the allegations such as bathroom breaks.
tjguy_{October 1, 2015
October
10
Oct
1
01
2015
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Seversky has never considered that other human beings are exquisitly designed and that perhaps they don't belong to anyone else to destroy tear up or sell or enslave. Perhaps Seversky has never really grappled with why we are here? Perhaps Seversky has never considered the intrinsic value of human life including his own.. Seversky did you know that you are valued?Andre_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky is not disturbed and Seversky does not really care that babies are torn limb by limb out of their mothers wombs. Seversky is also not disturbed that money is made from this practice do you want to know why? Seversky clearly does not value human life because for Seversky human life is meaningless just like his own life is meaningless with no rhyme or reason for it. He just is.Andre_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Seversky said:
Both sides have adopted “Alinskyite tactics” in the propaganda war over abortion.
You have yet to make the case that the conservative side has engaged in any such tactics.
I agree that the videos and testimony suggested some disturbing attitudes and practices but taking undercover video, editing it to convey a particular impression with the purpose of influencing public opinion is propaganda not information.
You are making an assumption about the motives of those who took the videos that is convenient to your accusation. How do you know that the footage was shot and edited for the purpose you claim? How do you know whether or not it is a faithful in-context representation? How do you know that the purpose was not simply to reveal to the public some of the disturbing things going on at Planned Parenthood?
If they wanted to inform public opinion they could have released the raw footage and allowed us to judge for ourselves and they could have offered PP a chance to give their side of the story. That they weren’t prepared to do that speaks for itself.
Did you not know that the full footage has been up at Youtube since late July? It seems to me that you're using a lot of convenient, biased assumption and motive mongering in order to support your contention that any of this represents an "Alinsky" style of attack, whereas calling conservatives out for a "war on women" and being "against women's health" is a patent Alinsky tactic.William J Murray_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

It's true that you cannot get an ought from an is. But you can get an 'ought' from an 'if'. If you want a society in which innocent human life is valued, you ought not to make any exceptions.EvilSnack_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

chris haynes @ 2
Thank you for reminding us that Abortion is legal, by decree of the United States Supreme Court. Just as the Holocaust was legal, under the provisions of the Enabling Act of 1933, passed in accordance with the Weimar Constitution.
The Enabling Act of 1933 effectively made Hitler a dictator. He did not have to pass Holocaust legislation through the German parliament. He did not have to defend it against challenge before a German supreme court with the power to overturn it. There was no possibility of funding for the program being allocated or withdrawn except with his approval. The situation was nothing like the United States today.
Therefore, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent Human Being. That is the definition of “murder”. Thus Abortion is state sanctioned, legal, Mass Murder like the Holocaust, only 10 times worse according to my figures.
Murder is the deliberate and unlawful killing of another human being. PP is doing nothing illegal under current law. If you want to stop abortion, change minds, change the law. ymeynot @ 3
The main point of the videos was to highlight the “for profit” trafficing in human body parts by PPH. Deal with that Mr. Seversky instead of trying to deflect the conversation to abortion.
The purpose of the heavily-edited videos was to allege that PP is trafficking in body parts for profit - which would be illegal. That is propaganda, not evidence. So far, no one has produced evidence that PP are doing anything illegal. Physteach @ 4
Absolutely! But that means there needs to be freedom of all available information so that people can make an informed decision. Far from being “Alinskyite tactics,” the videos are in the best tradition of Nellie Bly and other American journalists who exposed abuses of their time.
The video “stings” are heavily-edited versions of the original interviews whose purpose is to sway public opinion. That is propaganda. Releasing the raw footage of the interviews so that we could all judge for ourselves would have been information. These are Alinskyite tactics pure and simple. kairosfocus @ 7
Mung, Ought of course is founded in reality, at its root. An inherently good, thus moral root that is also the source of creation. KF
No, ought cannot be founded in what is, especially if that “inherently good” “moral root” is the one whose exploits are recounted in the Old Testament. Barry Arrington @ 11
Seversky in 2015: Whatever we might think of abortion, they are performing a legal procedure that has survived a Supreme Court challenge. Slavery apologist in 1858: Whatever we might think about enslaving a man, the masters are exercising their legal right that has survived a Supreme Court challenge. Sev, you must be so proud
No, that was a disgrace and a stain on the Court’s reputation ever since. But I remind you that an act abolishing slavery in the British Empire was passed in 1833 largely as result of a successful campaign to mobilize public opinion against it. This was well before the United States abolished it and achieved without the need to fight a bloody civil war. That is surely a better model for a campaign to ban abortion: change minds, change the law. William J Murray @ 14
No. Portraying those who are against abortion as conducting a “war on women” and those who wish to defund PP as trying to take away women’s health care are Alinsky tactics at their most blatant. Legal, peaceful demonstrations and lawful process to defund are not “Alinsky” tactics at all. Taking undercover video and releasing it to the public is hardly in itself an “Alinsky” tactic. They just happen to reveal some very disturbing practices and attitudes.
Both sides have adopted “Alinskyite tactics” in the propaganda war over abortion. If it’s wrong for one side then it’s wrong for both unless you take the view that the end justifies the means. I agree that the videos and testimony suggested some disturbing attitudes and practices but taking undercover video, editing it to convey a particular impression with the purpose of influencing public opinion is propaganda not information. If they wanted to inform public opinion they could have released the raw footage and allowed us to judge for ourselves and they could have offered PP a chance to give their side of the story. That they weren't prepared to do that speaks for itself.Seversky_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Heartlander: FYI Not 86% of revenue, but 86% of non-governmental revenue, which is less than a quarter of their total revenue. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6714/1996/2641/2013-2014_Annual_Report_FINAL_WEB_VERSION.pdf Planned Parenthood works primarily with low-income families. Abortion services can't be paid for with government funds; so while the bulk of Planned Parenthood services are funded by government programs, such as Medicaid, abortions have to be paid with non-government funds. Abortions, of course, will then make up the vast majority non-governmental revenue.Zachriel_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Z can argue for the "non-government" caveat, but that's about it. PPH receives 86% of its non-government revenue from abortions.Phinehas_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

FYI But I’m curious, what do you think the number is?Heartlander_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Heartlander: the fact that Planned Parenthood receives 86% of its revenue from abortions highlights this point. That is incorrect.Zachriel_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

The 3% abortion stat touted by Planned Parenthood is meaningless – many of these ‘services’ would not be provided if it wasn’t for the abortion. Furthermore, handing out a condom, a pill, a pregnancy test, or STI/STD testing for men is obviously not equivalent to an abortion – the fact that Planned Parenthood receives 86% of its revenue from abortions highlights this point. The human brain constitutes approximately 2% of the total body weight. That said, those who calculate stats based on Planned Parenthood’s math are merely 2% intelligent.Heartlander_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

SteRusJon: You completely ignored the corrective Barry pointed us to in order to enforce your no-concession policy. We addressed the so-called corrective, and to further the discussion provided an alternative statistic; about nine in ten Planned Parenthood patients do not receive an abortion.Zachriel_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, “Figures don’t Lie, but Liars Figure.”* You make the Liar's Club proud. While the 3% figure may be true, it doesn't mean what you purport it does. You completely ignored the corrective Barry pointed us to in order to enforce your no-concession policy. That's OK. You have again shown where you heart really is. Stephen *Mark TwainSteRusJon_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Read the following only if you have a strong stomach Eight Things We Learned from Planned Parenthood’s ‘Proud’ Boss Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards testified before Congress Tuesday. By Al Perrotta Published on September 30, 2015 https://stream.org/learned-planned-parenthoods-proud-boss/bornagain77_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: The 3% figure is an obscene lie. Nothing in the article substantiates the accusation that the figure is in error. You could cite a different statistic, such as that about 12% of Planned Parenthood patients receive abortions, however, many clinics refer out for prenatal care which skews the figure.Zachriel_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Planned Parenthood does provide women’s health care.
There are doctors and hospitals for that. We don't need Planned Parenthood.Virgil Cain_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

The 3% figure is an obscene lie. No surprise that Zachriel parrots it like a good little leftist zombie. Barry Arrington_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Physteach: For years Planned Parenthood has been masquerading as purely a women’s health and care clinic. Planned Parenthood does provide women's health care. That they provide abortion has never been secret. Abortion represents about 3% of their services provided. Physteach: Now facts emerge that severely question those claims. The claim is that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue, when the facts indicate that the organization works within laws which prohibits the sale of fetal tissue, but which do allow for the reimbursement of costs. Tissue donation by Planned Parenthood only occurs in four states. The videos are very questionable, but tissue donation is certainly a gruesome procedure.Zachriel_{September 30, 2015
September
09
Sep
30
30
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply