World News Korner

Wyoming becomes first state to reject new science standards. The reason is not Evolution this time, it's Global Warming.

Courtesy of Star Tribune:

Wyoming is the first state to block a new set of national science standards, but a week after Gov. Matt Mead signed off on the change, education advocates are still digesting what the action means for the state.

Some say the provision, which came through a last-minute budget footnote, blocks the state from considering any part of the Next Generation Science Standards, a set of K-12 standards developed by national science education groups and representatives from 26 states. Others, including the provision's author, say it prevents the wholesale adoption of the standards as they are written.

And why do Wyoming lawmakers have a problem with the new science standards which were introduced to upgrade the old standards that were over fifteen years old and terribly outdated?

Religious objections to he teaching of evolution?

Concern over instruction about the Big Bang that some Fundamentalists consider an affront to their belief system?

Nope.

One of lawmakers' big concerns with the Next Generation Science Standards is an expectation that students will understand humans have significantly altered the Earth's biosphere. In other words, the standards say global warming is real.

That's a problem for some Wyoming lawmakers.

"[The standards] handle global warming as settled science," said Rep. Matt Teeters, a Republican from Lingle who was one of the footnote's authors. "There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming."

Teeters said teaching global warming as fact would wreck Wyoming's economy, as the state is the nation's largest energy exporter, and cause other unwanted political ramifications.

Micheli, the state board of education chairman, agreed.

"I don't accept, personally, that [climate change] is a fact," Micheli said. "[The standards are] very prejudiced in my opinion against fossil-fuel development."

To be clear this is a decision based solely on a fear that teaching that climate change is both real, and impacted by the actions of mankind, will have political repercussions and a short term financial impact.

One could perhaps understand the argument against evolution, based on fear that it will undermine religious belief, but this one is based solely on the fact that the politicians fear that children learning about climate change will grow up to be too informed to support oil drilling and fossil fuel exploitation.

It is really rare to have an argument against science education be quite this transparent.

Source