Just another debate about evolution and autoerotic asphyxiation

During debate in the House on Tuesday of an NDP motion concerning the value of science, Bruce Hyer asked Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science, if he believed in evolution (Mr. Goodyear’s views on evolution were sort of a thing a few years ago).

Mr. Goodyear responded that “what I would recommend to the honourable member is that when he tightens that towel around his neck at nighttime that he not do it for more than 20 seconds. It actually ends up causing cerebral anoxia that leaves permanent brain damage.”

Elizabeth May then rose on a point of order after QP yesterday and suggested this was unparliamentary because it seemed to be a reference to “deviant sexual practices” (presumably autoerotic asphyxiation).

Mr. Goodyear then rose on a point of order to explain that he was not referring to autoerotic asphyxiation, he was only implying that Mr. Hyer might suffer from brain damage. Nonetheless, he withdrew the comment.




Browse

Just another debate about evolution and autoerotic asphyxiation

  1. Artful dodge, Mr Goodyear.

  2. Don’t try explaining anything scientific to a conservative,their motto is “Don’t bother me with facts my mind is made up”

  3. All our MPs are wankers, not just one or two of them. Why did Goodyear withdraw comment, surely statements of fact are allowed in House.

  4. This comment was deleted.

    • Flagged and downvoted, you pathetic twit.
      If you disagree with Emily, man up and put your views forward, rather than this pissant identity theft crap.

  5. This man represents Harper on all things Science-y? And he considers a question of whether he understands the basic tenets of modern biology as worthy of a completely non-sequitar unparliamentary insult? The only explanation that makes sense is that he’s got something damaging on Harper. It’s probably a pretty embarassing video, and judging from Goodyear’s fixation, I’m going to guess that it involves the PM, a towel, and a pricey aquaintaince of Rahim Jaffer.

  6. I see Goodyear has done some research into the subject.

    Well.. at least he’s researching something.

  7. Would you want a science minister who believed in:

    - transubstantiation

    - virgin birth

    - resurrection

    - an unobservable and unmeasurable supreme being

    - an unsubstantiatable after life

    - ensoulment

    There’s nothing remotely scientifically founded in any of the above. Yet, they are all tenets of the Catholic church. So if you get a RC for a science minister, chances are he/she believes in at least some of the above.

    So, as an agnostic, I find it useful to ignore a MP’s/MLA’s/etc religious beliefs, and focus on how well (or not) he/she does the job.

    FWIW, I consider Goodyear’s response to have been insulting (and not just to Hyer).

    My 2 cents.

    [written by someone raised as a RC]

    • I expect anyone with influence in public life to set these ideas aside when actual science must be discussed in a professional setting. That’s why what Stock Day said about dinosaurs was so unsettling.

      • How would you have a hypothetical RC science minister answer the question: “Do you believe in an after life”?

        Or have them answer a question asking them to contrast the scientific evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being vs the scientific evidence supporting the existence of the tooth fairy?

        Religion is based on faith, not science. So unless you have an atheist for a science minister, you’re going to have someone who holds non-scientific beliefs.

    • Ideally, no. Until atheists and agnostics make up a more dominant proportion of the population, perhaps. Until then I would be satsuma with someone who didn’t interpret the Bible literally.

      • OK – but why is literal interpretation of the Bible considered worse than believing in any number of other scientifically unsound notions?

Sign in to comment.