Bill Nye Pervs Science—Again

I’m interrupting the regularly scheduled post—I had hoped to squeeze in some reality this week and give us something to be cheerful about—to bring you another segment of Bill Nye perving Science. You heard me: perving.

Look, it matters not one whit, nor one bit of whit, that Nye’s idea of science is as corrupt and fallen as Harvard’s conception of truth. Proving his science wrong is as easy as winning a self-esteem trophy for attending the Berkeley Antifa Paraolympics.

What matters is that a large and growing segment of the population, credentialed far beyond their ability to think or reason, but believing themselves wise, think the rot Nye is pushing is science. Science to these realityophobes is just another battlefield in the culture wars. Whether the science is right or wrong is immaterial. What matters is only whether Science is said to be on the side of anti-reality.

One thing glaringly wrong I will mention, if only because our side is too quick to use the language of our enemies. There is no such thing as “conversion therapy”, but only because there are no such things as homosexuals. There are no such things as heterosexuals, either.

If we are defined by our sexual desires, which is to say, if our essence is that which we lust after, then there are (as pointed out last week) such creatures as necrophiliacs, woofies, refrigerator lovers, masturbators, blondies (those who desire only blondes), and on and on and on. If you say not, if you say “gays” are in some way different, the burden is on you to say how.

You will not meet this burden, because desire for any but the opposite sex is an absence of the proper essence of a man or woman. It is not the presence of some thing, like a strand of DNA (which we know anyway is false), but the lack of something that should be there.

Since there are no “gays”, then a “gay” cannot “convert” into a “straight”. (This is cheering: consider that some cultures want to and do kill gays, but if there aren’t any, there isn’t anybody to kill.) A man’s desires may change, and often do. The late Joseph Nicolosi knew this (more or less). He called for “reparative therapy”, which is orders of magnitude a better name than “conversion therapy.”

Nicolosi had great success with men restoring what was lost (but nobody bats a thousand). Read some of the tales from men who learned to retrieve what they had lost. The title of one story reveals volumes about our culture: “When I told my friends ‘I’m gay,’ I was a celebrity.” There’s even a story from a Catholic priest.

Well, you can dismiss these observations if you like, because they are death to the corrupt theory that Nye holds. Dismissing observations isn’t scientific, though; but it does make for good politics.

Anyway, back to Nye. Let your kids watch that science video, would you? It’s aimed at kids. A Vanilla cone learns to widen his sexual desires and embrace orgies? Just like you hope your child will do someday?

It’s Science!


  1. Juan Tamad

    Talk about pseudo-intellectualism. How do you detect that?

  2. Stillwater

    The entire South was literally Hitler.

  3. Per

    Assuming you refer to the USA, then the North better fit your description.

  4. Mike in KC, MO

    The skit was meant to be funny. Hell I’ve seen some rather uncouth stuff that was till funny. This was just…. it was like a grandfather trying to act ‘hip and cool’ so his grandson would like him. It was gratingly unfunny.

  5. DAV

    those who desire only blondes

    Brings to mind a line from Ruthless People: “Some of us like that sort of thing.”

    Some people also like ice cream — some a lot. Personally, I’m all for vanilla and feel the others are pure perversions.

    Bill Nye is increasingly demonstrating that he is a Sy Gy and is as close to being a Science Guy as a similarly named cable network is close to being science fiction.

  6. Yawrate

    Briggs, you say there are no gays. But I assert that if there are mix ups in the hardware (which you know exist) then there can be mix ups in the software. This is not to say that all so called gays are irrevocably attracted to the same sex but to make the case that there may be some who cannot be ‘repaired’.

    Maybe Iran has seen the light since they insist, like you, that there are no gay men, in Iran anyway.

  7. Larry Geiger

    ” Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” Only thing on their minds day in and day out is fornication and perversion.

  8. Larry Geiger

    Ok, and maybe, occasionally, a little adultery.

  9. Sig Sawyer

    I suspect homosexuality may be an epigenetic mutation that occurs among already-unmasculine males in a state of male-unfavorable sexual markets to improve reproductive fitness of close kin and decrease male competition for mates. Considering the affinity gay men and young straight women have for each other, the gay’s manly brother has more access to young ‘n tight.

    Not to mention that gays breed more gays. Something like half of gay men were molested as children. Should put the ‘gay gene’ hypothesis to bed.

  10. Ken

    human chimerism

    human hermaphroditism

    Those are tangible, measurable, observable (and there are others). Those are biologically established facts affecting some humans — consistent with Briggs’ [curious] “absence of the proper essence of a man or woman.”

    As to whether gays are born that way or made that way by toxic parenting (Nicolosi’s view) is almost besides the point. Assuming they were made that way (and there is plenty of evidence to support this; perhaps being genetically predispositioned to respond to environmental stress in this way) so what?

    Numerous behavioral traits are the result of “bad parenting” or other psychological traumas and very “sticky” in the sense they are difficult or, in practical terms, impossible for most to overcome (e.g. shyness, stuttering [in some cases], many phobias, and so on). If a gay has their orientation due to the effect of environment (nurture, as per Nicolosi) So what?

    If one is invoking Nocolosi one is conceding there was no choice in the matter!

    If the person is a productive, or at least not a disruptive, member of a “free” society (one in which freedom of religion is said to exist — where one particular type of religious view is not foisted on others) why should any member of society care? Or, put another way, why should any member of society discriminate against them for their personal orientation and private behaviors, which affect no-one in broader society?

  11. @Ken

    Nicolosi obviously found that the genesis of unnatural urges and proclivities was obscure to the individual, and foisted itself upon them probably contrary to their wishes; but he still found that the problem could respond sufficiently to the will in people armed with an understanding of it, if they themselves had not yet scarred themselves horribly. He admitted that men who had lived the gay lifestyle enthusiastically for any substantial length of time, had a very hard time getting rid of it (though even they could, with enough time, willpower or intellect); but men who had exclusively homosexual interests and orientation, even for decades, if they had avoided throwing themselves at the lifestyle, responded very well to reparative therapy if they agreed to abandon porn/masturbation, and to cultivate healthy friendships with masculine men.

    So, no, to cite Nicolosi is not to “concede that there is no choice in the matter.” It is to concede that the onset of the sexual dysfunction was likely involuntary and distressing, and contrary to the wishes, of the victim; but that choice, intellect and will retain a mighty power to remedy the affliction when good choices are paired with the right insights. Heck, the wisdom of past generations was probably right: the affliction is the result of a phase of hormonal confusion and immaturity. For young men, at least, whose bodies are often ready to perform even without any direct stimulation or titillation, all it took for many was that first roll in the hay with a new bride to clear the confusion right up, or at least to make it essentially moot to their ability to lead an happy, married life. A part of me thinks that, if you gave a halfway decent homosexual man a viagra and a pretty girl, and told him to realize that the thing he had been sexualizing all his life was something he already possessed, in potential, inside himself, that he could overcome the problem right then and there!

    The problem these days, is young people being allowed – encouraged, even – to make disastrously bad sexual choices, and to embrace “identities,” prematurely and in abstraction from the healthy constraints of a decent society. Society is supposed to constrain young people’s choices, to a large degree, including pressuring them into marriage quickly. 99% of our problems would sort themselves out if we did that, and forbade contraception.

    And as to a “live and let live” attitude towards the queer culture: only a blind fool would say that the gay agenda and culture today is a matter of “private behavior” that is “not disruptive.” Sodomites parade about, often nude, and engage in public orgies and sex acts, and even parade their extremely underage catamites around in revealing garments, in broad daylight, at gay events in San Francisco and elsewhere. They sue, harass, harangue, intrude upon and otherwise plague the world with their perversions in as public a way as possible. In a sane and just society all bold, public perverts would be killed by due process of law, and the filth of their corpses ejected into the vacuum of space so as not to taint the earth (further).

    Back in the day, when society demanded that people keep their sex lives private, everyone was aware that there were gays; but the general public was not very interested in harassing or murdering them for truly private activity, and far fewer people got sucked into the lifestyle because of the intense public opprobrium surrounding it. I don’t doubt that there were occasional lynchings or honor killings when they got too bold in this or that town; but that is still infinitely preferable to the current situation, where men fellate each other on the street in leather chaps while children are twenty feet away, and where there is strong evidence of a worldwide network of queer pedophiles abusing children in horrible ways. I’d rather we had stuck to the policy of controlled burns, for now we are overdue for a massive, sprawling forest fire.

    It would be a great pleasure to see Bill Nye and others of his ilk, sent to their public executions for promoting degeneracy and deception to the public on important matters of policy. It would be an even greater pleasure to sign the death warrant myself, or to be selected to be on the firing squad (though my profession demands that I abstain from direct involvement in the bloodshed). I speak of satisfaction, but I do not have in mind the satisfaction of mere vengeance – though there may be some temptation to indulge that lust (hey! that’s all right! some ice creams like honor killings and political executions! don’t be so vanilla and judgmental y’all!); rather, I have in mind a satisfaction, like that of taking out a trash bag that had started to smell horribly in the house, or of stopping and cleaning a spill of raw sewage, which a leaky pipe had deposited into your backyard. These are not “private” people doing “private” things. They are one of the most serious, public problems and threats to the health of our civilization.

    I am sick of the filth pouring into our society from every direction. May God incinerate us, like Sodom and Gomorrah of old, for I hate the way that our society’s sins now scream out to heaven all the day long! Even we who have not embraced degenerate lifestyles or public indecency probably deserve to die, since obviously we have lost our boldness and manliness in opposing such things as they ought to be opposed. Like salt that has lost its savour, we are only fit to be cast out into the street and trampled upon. Saint Bernard said: what is the point of complaining of your sins and making protestations of your contrition and desire for repentance, if you will not stop the sewer of sin from filling the house of the soul with fresh excrement? Sed Tu, Domine, usquequo?

  12. “If we are defined by our sexual desires, which is to say, if our essence is that which we lust after…”

    Right here is where you lose it. Sexuality is a, personal and psychological, definition of part who we are, but we are most certainly not “defined by” it. In that little video, it is the Vanilla (you), who is making such a sweeping, unscientific, and spurious exclamation. What Nye and his little cast of ice cream cones are saying is “get over it.” There is a lot of pressure on homosexuals from certain sectors to “be normal,” but it is extremely dangerous to mess around with the sexual wiring of the brain. Science isn’t there yet. Maybe one day, the science will be there, and we can all be good little Christian clones. Will that make you happy?


  13. Ray

    “Sexuality is a, personal and psychological, definition of part who we are, but we are most certainly not “defined by” it”
    Not even partly?

  14. Stephen

    I agree that there people are not their series, but homosexuality behavior is observed in animals even if it is aberrant. And what of bisexuals, what are they lacking? The fall of man, so called, made human animals into introspective beings capable of understanding and recognizing in others what they felt in themselves, thus the fear of nakedness. People don’t fear nakedness around non-human animals or infants, because there is no mutual recognition. The dissonance between our new found morality and the original animal instincts is largely responsible for the state of our world and what we call sin, but I don’t believe homosexuality is the result of a lack of something. It is something that was always there but could have carried no moral weight until man gained the knowledge of good and evil thanks to Satan.

  15. Stephen

    Thought I wrote desires but wrote series instead there in that last comment. Not even sure wtf happened.

  16. Milton Hathaway

    JMJ – Off topic, but I stumbled across a lovely little book for the kids in your family:

    “Once upon a time, people yearned to be free of the misery of capitalism. How could their dreams come true? This little book proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism. Offering relief for many who have been numbed by Marxist exegesis and given headaches by the earnest pompousness of socialist politics, it presents political theory in the simple terms of a children’s story, accompanied by illustrations of lovable little revolutionaries experiencing their political awakening.”

  17. swordfishtrombone

    @ Bob Kurland:

    I read the article you linked to. In my opinion, it is total rubbish. Literally every line contains some or other misrepresentation, strawman argument or outright lie. For instance, we have this idiotic statement about evolution:

    “Evolutionary theory is riddled with unanswered questions. The first premise is spontaneous generation, the appearance of life where there was none. According to science, this is impossible.”

    Evolution does not have “spontaneous generation” as a first premise and it is in any case plainly false to say such a thing is “impossible” according to science. That’s two lies in two sentences.

    The whole article is full of similar lies and misrepresentations. There are false claims about ‘missing links’ in the fossil record, false claims about what ID proponents usually call “irreducible complexity”, use of the misleading “macroevolution” distinction-without-a-difference and even the claim that science can’t explain the fact that the universe is expanding.

    I have no scientific training at all but I can see that these arguments are false.

  18. swordfishtrombone

    @ AureliusMonor:

    “In a sane and just society all bold, public perverts would be killed by due process of law, and the filth of their corpses ejected into the vacuum of space so as not to taint the earth (further).”

    Said Jesus.

  19. swordfishtrombone

    @ Lee Phillips:

    “Here is a convenient list of streets in Germany that were named after Adolf Hitler:”

    What are you talking about?

  20. Swordfish trombone, it’s evident indeed that you have no scientific training at all. That being said, I don’t myself agree with Rabbi Goldson’s arguments for ID and against evolution. Much of what he says in a general sense is sound, that there is an arrogance among some physicists who think science explains everything, and a lack of the sense of wonder about what it’s all about.

    If you didn’t see that, then I feel sorry for you.

  21. swordfishtrombone:

    When this page first appeared Briggs decorated it at the top with a box containing links to articles about how N. Carolina (I think) was taking down a few monuments that celebrated, explicitly, white supremacy and slavery. He sneered that this was a way to pretend that the Civil War never happened. In case the absurdity of this was lost on anyone, I supplied an analogy.

  22. Aurelius Moner – your magnificent, and terrible, comment, set to the strains of Battle Hymn of the Republic. It’s coming, it’s coming, and would that we could run and hide.

  23. swordfishtrombone

    @ Bob Kurland:

    “Swordfish trombone, it’s evident indeed that you have no scientific training at all.”

    Says a scientist who linked to an article littered with demonstrably false claims about several major areas of science.

    “I don’t myself agree with Rabbi Goldson’s arguments for ID and against evolution”

    Which make up the bulk of his argument.

    “Much of what he says in a general sense is sound, that there is an arrogance among some physicists who think science explains everything, and a lack of the sense of wonder about what it’s all about.”

    It’s ridiculous for a proponent of religion, such as the Rabbi, to claim that scientists are arrogant. I’ve never heard a scientist claim that “science explains everything”, only that the scientific method can *in principle* be used to investigate everything, which is a completely different claim. Meanwhile, religion actually *does* claim to be able to explain everything, including the origin of the universe, god’s internal thought processeses, the meaning of life and which types of animal we shouldn’t eat, and all with 100 % certainty. If that’s not arrogant, I don’t know what is.

  24. Swordfish Trombone, I’m not sure how to respond to an incoherent argument.
    I can agree with general tenets of Rabbi Goldson’s article, even though I disagree with his arguments for ID. If you read the article carefully, that isn’t the main point he’s trying to push. But if you don’t understand that, I can’t help you.

    With respect to some scientists being arrogant about science explaining everything, here are some quotes:

    “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” Stephen Hawking. ABC Interview, 2010″

    “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
    Richard Dawkins (1992) (I’m bending my standards to call Dawkins a scientist)

    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
    Steven Weinberg (1999)

    Organized religion, wielding power over the community, is antithetical to the process of what modern democracy should define as liberty. The sooner we are without it, the better.”Lawrence Krauss (from Brainyquote)

    I suggest those quotes denote an arrogant attitude, but if you don’t…..I’ll call to mind the quote from Alice Through the Looking Glass:

    “. ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ …

  25. Joy

    VANILLA IS BEST but pistash’ is an honorary vanilla.
    Anyway vanilla’s just the first flavour and ironically it comes from an orchid. When a man’s tescicls are removed they call it an orchidectomy.
    …but I’m flexible in the matter of ice-cream.

    This is the same old game of dominos over and over again.
    Who’s dominos are they anyway? I will confiscate!
    I grow tired…

  26. swordfishtrombone

    @ Bob Kurland:

    “With respect to some scientists being arrogant about science explaining everything, here are some quotes:”

    None of your quotes claim science can explain everything. All appear to be self-effacing in the extreme when compared to religious claims of absolute knowledge from zero evidence.

    I also don’t see any scientists going around threatening to behead anybody who disagrees.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you bring up that Lewis Carroll quote – redefining ‘arrogance’ is your only way to win this.

  27. swordfish trombone, evidently you took a while to think about your latest reply. Here’s the OED definition of arrogant:

    “Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.”

    I claim that those quotes display an exaggerated sense of the ability of science to explain everything. If you don’t agree with that, then you can, of course, abide by Humpty Dumpty’s use of the definition of words.
    And, by the way, I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m trying to explain to those susceptible to rational argument who may be reading these comments why I think and say the way I do. As for those not susceptible to rational arguments, I can only shrug my shoulders and pray that the Holy Spirit will eventually give them the grace to see the truth.

  28. Robert

    “credentialed far beyond their ability to think or reason”

    I love that phrase!

  29. swordfishtrombone

    @ Bob Kurland:

    “I claim that those quotes display an exaggerated sense of the ability of science to explain everything.”

    Then you should read them again. The first two say science is different to religion, due to use of evidence and reason rather than faith, the second two don’t even mention science at all.

    Incidentally, don’t you think that claiming that science *can’t* explain everything is arrogant?

  30. @swordfish trombone:

    “Incidentally, don’t you think that claiming that science *can’t* explain everything is arrogant?

    No. Look at the OED definition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *