Thursday, October 08, 2015

Bill Nye the Abortion Choice Guy, Pt. 2

A friend of mine recently described Bill Nye the "science guy" as the Mister Rogers of science.  I imagine this is how many readers think of Mr. Nye.  Another friend laughed as he told me a story about a middle school science teacher he had who would put on a Bill Nye video for the students while she sat at her desk and painted her nails!  He lamented that while he really wants to like Bill Nye and be in his corner, sometimes Nye speaks about things that he clearly doesn't know very much about or addresses issues that one would think he would be smart enough to leave alone.

The Bill Nye of our childhood is no longer.  The Bill Nye of today is buddies with Richard Dawkins, believes creationism is "inane," [1] and is pro-abortion choice.  So much for Mr. Rogers.

Last week we featured Pt.1 of our response to Mr. Nye's viral video "Can We Stop Telling Women What to Do with Their Bodies?"  In the video, Nye demonstrates that he doesn't understand the science of embryology or the Bible.  This week we look at his second false claim.

Claim: Opposition to abortion is based on an “interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago” that makes people “think that when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse they always have a baby.”

Response: I challenge anyone reading this to show me where the Bible says that "when a man and woman have sexual intercourse they always have a baby."

Moreover, I have listened to some of the best speakers the Pro-life Movement has to offer including Greg Koukl, Scott Klusendorf, Jay Watts, and Abby Johnson and I have never heard them use such an argument.  Their arguments are grounded in good science and sound philosophy, something Nye's arguments are sorely lacking.  To be sure, their arguments are consistent with the Bible, but in no way do they rely upon it.

Once again, the words of James D. Agresti are instructive:

"The Bible says no such thing, and everyone who has ever had repeated sex without birth control knows that a baby does not always result. Furthermore, miscarriages (technically called “spontaneous abortions”) are often visibly obvious to those who have suffered them. These are not modern revelations of science but realities that have been obvious since the dawn of mankind.

Contrary to Nye’s straw man, Biblically-based opposition to abortion is not rooted in unscientific fallacies but in principles about the value and uniqueness of each individual from the moment of conception. Incidentally, these principles are consistent with science. Beyond the scientific facts that show life begins at fertilization, modern science has also revealed that each human embryo is biologically unique and irreplaceable.

Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, once a woman conceives an embryo, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10600 to one. For a point of comparison, there are roughly 1080 atoms in the known universe.

Even among identical twins (who have the same DNA), the burgeoning science of epigenetics has shown they still have biological differences that make each of them incredibly distinctive." [2]

Once again, when one argues the case for life using good science and philosophy their case doesn't need to rely upon the Bible, but the case for life surely is consistent with what is revealed in Scripture.

I think Mr. Nye needs to "respect the facts" and admit his false claims.  He needs to take his own advice and "be objective."

Next week, in our final post of the series, we will deal with Mr. Nye's claim that there are "more important things to be dealing with" than abortion and that we need to "respect people" (accept those people in the womb apparently).

Courage and Godspeed,

2.  James D. Agresti, Bill Nye the Science Guy Claims Laws Protecting "Unborn People" are "Based on Ignorance," Sept. 28, 2015.

1 comment:

Chase said...

If interested, a caller to the September 29th Stand to Reason broadcast called in about this Bill Nye Video. That podcast can be listened to here.

Greg Koukl also addressed the video during the October 6th broadcast. The podcast of that broadcast, which contains Koukl's commentary on the video, can be listened to here.