Wyoming First State to Block Next Generation Science Standards over Man-Made Climate Change

science labworkBy Dr. Susan Berry –

Wyoming has become the first state to officially reject the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), primarily due to the science standards’ presentation of man-made climate change as a fact, as well as their depiction of evolution as scientific fact.

According to the Casper Star-Tribune, a big problem for some Wyoming lawmakers is the NGSS’s expectation that students will learn humans have significantly changed the Earth’s biosphere and, consequently, caused global warming.

Read the rest at Breitbart.com

  • Rob N. Hood

    Big Dick Cheney’s old State… whata shocker. Evolution??????!!!!!!!!!! Oh noooooo!!!!!!!!!

    • Oh, hey so they don’t believe what you do. So everything you think and believe is correct and true? And anyone who thinks differently is sub-human to you?
      I personally believe that evolution is correct. It makes sense to me scientifically. But it is not a proven fact. Granted there is a lot of evidence to support the theory, more evidence than, say, the theory of AGW, but it is still a theory. People who do not believe in evolution have every right to not believe in it. Just as you have the right to believe in it. Who are you to judge them on their religious beliefs? At least they’re not trying to make everyone else believe what they think, and make everyone else follow their religion like the followers of anthropogenic global warming are.

  • Fietser

    They’re going back to rain-dancing as well?

    • neilio

      All they’re saying is to teach facts as facts, and theories as theories. Is evolution a fact? is AGW a fact? The answer to both is no. They are both theories. And that’s the facts Jack!

    • I find your comment demeaning to native Americans.

    • JAM

      If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that homosexuality is normal.

      • Look, this discussion is about not wanting to teach the theory of AGW as fact in their schools. Since they also have included the debate about evolution this thread has kind of gone off on that somewhat. But this is going well outside the topic.

      • Rob N. Hood

        U be dumb.

  • Rob N. Hood

    “Neilio” I find your comments demeaning to people with more than half a brain.

    *this comment from a proudly Neilio endorsed and confirmed subhuman

    • Did I call you a sub-human? I don’t think I did. I’m pretty sure what I said was that you place yourself above them so that you can look down and scoff at them, and that you think yourself superior so that you can mock, ridicule, and dismiss their beliefs. Just not in so many words.

      • Matt

        Nielo, you’re confused on what a theory is. What about the theory of gravity? The theory of mass evaporation? You can’t prove either of those true, but from observation and analysis we can conclude these theories are fact just like evolution and climate change. When 97% of the people that dedicate their lives to this research, we in the scientific community accept AGW as fact.

        • Matt

          I didn’t write this properly….. When 97% of the people that dedicate their lives studying this conclude that we are warming the earth, we accept it as fact. And if you don’t believe in evolution, which from a scientific standpoint is the only answer and a fact, I don’t think you’ve done enough research on the subject.

          • First of all, that 97% figure you AGW true believers like to throw around is BS. One way to prove it is to look at the number of scientists that dedicate their lives studying this that are skeptical. It sure as heck isn’t 3%! If it were you and your ilk would not be worried in the least. Yet here you are defending it.

            I am not confused at all about what a theory is, in fact if you look at the definition of theory in the dictionary there are six different definitions, but only two of them are relevant to this post. I think you are confusing one of those definitions with the other one.
            You are defining the theory of AGW, (to which I assign definition #6 ” An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture”), with definition #1 ” A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” Which I think the theory of gravity is a good example of. But gravity is still a theory because we still don’t know exactly what it is. Right? Mass evaporation is definitely a #6, and so is global warming because the only evidence for it exists in computer models, and all of the models said it would be much warmer by now. And it’s not.
            Evolution I would define with definition #1, but it is still a theory because of similar reasons for why gravity is still a theory. We know that it happens, there is plenty of evidence that it has happened but they still don’t know what the mechanism for it is.
            I actually agree that evolution is a reality. There is no doubt in my mind that it’s real. But, because there is no mechanism for it that has been found it is open to interpretation, and in my opinion makes their point of view just as relevant as yours on the matter. For all we know God makes changes on a whim! Who knows? They don’t “know” and you don’t “know” either.

        • Hamin’ X

          The theory of gravitation is a theory, because the evidence for it’s origin is inconclusive. Is gravity a push, or a pull? What causes it? Attraction of mass to mass, or repulsion from the dark energy that permeates the universe? Theories are changed by evidence all the time

          Where is your evidence that one species has arisen from another? More theories, right?

          • neilio

            Well put. Thanks for that. It’s weird that you mention dark energy. I was just wondering about that the other day when I was playing with some magnets. I wondered if dark energy had anything to do with magnetism and gravity. I had not heard that theory before, but I’m not surprised that it has been theorized by smarter people than I.

        • Hankster

          …The first law of science should be: “No functional system or entity can exist without intelligent engineering.”
          The Theory of Evolution is a mystical faith religion.
          It’s proselytes are Atheists who’s cultic visceral responses to dissent from their orthodoxy is mind numbing.
          A fish evolving from an act of it’s own will into some divergent superior life forms is stupidity; not the height of intellectualism.
          Believing Intricate specificity and function derive from random chaos in the absence of intelligent engineering is a form of psychosis that flies in the face of reality.
          No order can arrive from random chaos no matter how much time is speculated without some form of intelligence being applied.
          Why does the earth spin rhythmically on an invisible axis around the sun in conjunction with a moon, reacting and causing reactions on a planet occupied by innumerable life forms?
          Is one’s identity and consciousness a biological cosmic accident? The best science says “I don’t actually know how the F— we got here on this amazing piece of real estate.
          It is in the realm of possibility that we are not the superior intelligence in the universe… pass me another Martini.”

          • Whacky! But I think I like you. It is debatable but I believe there is a creator, but I don’t think the creator has an active hand in the continuing evolution of life. I think the creator made it to do that all on its own. But I also do not make the mistake of convincing myself that I know these things to be facts. Which I think is a mistake you are making.

        • Hankster

          Gravity is not a “Theory.”
          It is a readily observable phenomenon.
          A boy morphing into a monkey over billions of years is not an observable phenomenon.
          It is a very entertaining Fairy Tale that makes more sense the more marijuana one smokes.
          Really? Men were once paramecium that lived in some water but wanted to eat barbecue because it was a nice concept in the undeveloped mind of the albino paramecium with the vestige of a hand growing from it’s back 8.7 trillion years ago during the Dragon ages?
          Yeah!
          I believe Professor!
          “…millions and billions and genetic mutations and wishful thinking…gimme my C+!”

          • I don’t disagree with you completely, but you do seem to be a little whacko. Which is all right, I guess. I do have to agree that gravity is a readily observable phenomenon. But I also have to ask if you can explain how gravity works? I would be very surprised if you could. When talking about the theory of gravity they are talking of the theories about how gravity works. We didn’t always understand how light, and sound works either, and they have been as readily observable as gravity is. So yes, gravity itself is not a theory, but how gravity works is.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh, once again, my mistake, apparently. You never cause misinterpretation or slight grammatical booboos? Not that I did, just saying, again, you are Mr. Perfect. And re: evolution, yes it’s a theory. A very strong one, especially verses what most people currently believe about “creationism”. Do I care if creationists believe such nonsense? Not at all (so we agree again on something). But creationists are the ones who seem to want to insist on their ideas becoming mainstream and even basing it for political maneuvers and policies including in public education. Creationism is MUCH more closely related to religion, not science, plain and simple as that. Do we really want to teach kids religion in our schools when they can get all they want of their parent’s religion in church, synagogue, mosque, etc.? If so, you should live in a fundamentalist country like Afghanistan or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, et al.

    • But you are completely mischaracterizing what they are saying in the article. They are not talking about teaching religion in schools. It doesn’t say that anywhere. What it does say is that they think facts should be taught as facts, and theories should be taught as theories. That is the whole point. You are hyperbolizing!

    • Carol moorby

      The trouble is that schools are condemning what we parents teach at home and ridiculing it and teaching our kids that creationism is not true. That’s not right to usurp parents…Religions are being taught in schools today at the exclusion of Christianity. We just would like equal time. Parents are just not realizing that New age, occult, witchcraft, Muslim religion is actually being practiced in their schools. I had to go and confront a music teacher who was teaching satanism ….My kids came home and told me about it. Thank goodness they knew it was wrong. It makes me sad that Christians and Jewish people are being attacked constantly but other religions are allowed with no question.

  • Rob N. Hood

    No I was making a logical extrapolation on it and your own bland statement about other’s rights to believe what they wish, as if you alone are so noble to be able to do so, and as if these things sometimes don’t have grave consequences when taken to an extreme which is what religion likes to do whenever possible.

    • Even if that were true, it is still not what the article says. Not even close. Have you read the article? I have. And in it there is not one, not one single mention of teaching creationism theory in the schools. Show me where it says that. You can’t because it’s just not in the story. Every point that you have brought up against this story is drawn from your own personal beliefs and biases.
      I’ll grant that there may be, somewhere, some bible thumpin’ Jesus freaks who do want creationism taught in the classrooms. But they are not mentioned in this story.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Just because something I stated wasn’t in that particular article doesn’t mean I was being dishonest or manipulative. You yourself utilize all sorts of sources for your beliefs and statements here, per your own words. So my addition of info/data for a comment/response is somehow illegitimate? Control issues much? For example, I was facetiously characterizing myself as subhuman (your term, not directed at me directly I realize that) based upon my different stance from yours, as a pretty darn accurate description of your general opinion of me based upon multiple comments by you towards me. It’s also called irony, and additionally hypocrisy. Your opportunistic insistence on a narrow literal meaning for everything is a great convenience you utilize, as needed, to champion yourself over anyone such as myself to dares question you and your various comments.

      • Carol moorby

        Why so you call Bible believers and those who love The Lord freaks? That seems somewhat harsh especially, when you don’t even know us. We all have a choice…I do love Jesus because if it weren’t for him I would be dead. He gave me a miracle healing when the doctors could not do any more for me…… God will never force himself on anyone…he gives us all free choice. I don’t think of myself as a freak. Sooner or later every one will have a life situation when they will drop to their knees because they are in a critical situation and call out for help. Watch and see. You have the right not to believe as we do, but I know that I can not save myself and need a savior. I have studied global warming and have found many truthful facts on the WNHO ( world natural health organization) that has definite stats on the hoax of global warming. The government has gotten rich on this teaching, like al gore. Now as of yesterday Obama said that we are all to be taxed on a fund to prosper the doctrine of G.W. Anyway I’m not a freak just for loving Jesus and the word of God.

        • Rob N. Hood

          No one called you a freak. But if you keep putting odd words in others mouth’s…

  • Matto

    Neilio: I appreciate your polite demeanor. That isn’t often common in public forums. Thank you for being a gentleman.
    Aside from deliberately misleading lies published by the NAAS, IPCC, et al, part of the problem with believing in GW or AGW is that the data is wrong. At least 70%, and possibly more than 90% of the data is definitely terribly skewed. Have a look here:
    http://surfacestations.org/
    Regarding evolution, if you mean life changing slightly based on surroundings, for example, that seems obvious. But if you mean (as often this term is substituted for origin of species) that life came about by random chance, that is, by definition of Borel’s Law, a scientific absurdity! I have never seen any data to support it. In fact, everything supports an extremely skillful creation. The more data I look at, the more obvious it becomes to me that things do not become more organized, but more random. As the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, entropy is definite (which is another slap in the face of the GW hoax.) There are over 200 conditions which must be met, most of them exactly, for life to exist. Change one of them the slighest bit, and life doesn’t exist. This is beyond coincidence! It also frustrates me to hear people talk of science in the sense that they think something must be provable in a lab when there is nothing scientific about speculation that life came about hundreds of millions of years ago. That is purely speculation. Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to within a few thousand years, and even that is based on assumptions.

    • Thanks Matto. I believe in evolution, but I believe that evolution is intelligent design. I’m not religious but I believe that there is a creator that is continuously creating. I am not surprised that the more we know the less we understand.

  • Hankster

    The “Theory of Evolution” is a religious tenet.
    Technological advancement has unmasked the absurdity of change without the application of a specified force vectored in a given direction.
    It moves and changes because a force was applied to it.
    The Atheist convert is blinded by a tenet of faith refusing to acknowledge that something can be moved, directed, or changed by intelligent engineering without being seen with the naked eye.
    The results are obvious but the faith filled Atheist cannot accept the results because his naked eye can’t see a white man, wearing a robe, and having a long beard…
    So he speculates that human beings who he can see with the unaided eye are the superior intelligence in the universe.
    Then he deems those who refute his orthodoxy as sub-intellectual…

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.