Renown Scientists Skeptical of Scientific Research

Current Events,

In a recent Breakpoint commentary, Eric Metaxas writes that renown scientists are beginning to question much of the scientific research being published.

Metaxas writes,

“In late April, researchers published the results of their efforts to replicate 100 of ‘psychology’s biggest experiments.’ They were only able get the same results in 39 of them.

“Commenting on the failure, Daniele Fanelli of Stanford told the prestigious journal ‘Nature’ that ‘reproducibility rates in cancer biology and drug discovery could be even lower.’ She added, ‘From my expectations, these are not bad at all.'”

According to scientists, researchers are increasingly plagued by problems ranging from small sample sizes to conflicts of interest in conducting scientific research.

Metaxas concludes by saying,

“[I]f a lot of the stuff being published is ‘incorrect’ or ‘untrue,’ please refrain from comparing people who question the scientific consensus to Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers.

“A little bit of humility would not be bad at all.”

You can read Metaxas’ entire commentary here or listen to it below.

[audio:http://www.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/audio/2015/060115_BP.mp3]

READ MORE

Family Council Calls on Justices to Stand by Arkansans

Current Events, ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, April 28, 2015

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges. This is considered by many to be a landmark case that will determine the future of marriage in America.

Family Council President Jerry Cox released a statement, saying, “Contrary to what some may believe, this is not simply a fight over same-sex marriage. This is about how marriage will be defined in America and who gets to write that definition.”

Cox said the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold state marriage laws in order to be consistent with its decision in United States v. Windsor. “In that ruling, the court said that marriage would be defined by each individual state. Upholding state marriage amendments as constitutional is the only way the court can be consistent with its 2013 Windsor decision.”

Cox said state marriage laws do more than simply ban same-sex marriage. “When the law says marriage is the union of one man to one woman, that is not simply a same-sex marriage ban. That defines the institution of marriage, and it prevents any other union from being classified as ‘marriage,’ including everything from same-sex marriage to polygamy.”

Cox said the U.S. Supreme Court should respect the will of the people concerning marriage. “If the court chooses to strike state marriage laws now, it will be doing so at the expense of democracy. Voters in Arkansas and thirty other states chose to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in only three states have voted to define marriage differently. Every poll in more than a decade has indicated Arkansans still support the definition of marriage they adopted in 2004. This is something voters have handled very capably up to this point. Unilaterally striking these state marriage laws would signal that voters are incapable or irrelevant in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

###

READ MORE

City of Little Rock to Weigh Unnecessary Ordinance

Current Events,

The City of Little Rock has announced it will begin the process of considering a so-called “nondiscrimination” ordinance pertaining to city employment.

According to news sources, the ordinance would prevent the city from making employment decisions based on sexual-orientation or gender-identity, and it would prevent businesses that contract with the city from doing so as well. However, the ordinance is unnecessary and may run afoul of new state law.

You may recall that S.B. 202 passed during the last legislative session prevents cities and counties from extending any special rights or protections beyond those found in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993. However, the bill specifically exempts employment policies by cities and counties.

Under S.B. 202, the City of Little Rock might be free to decide it will not make employment decisions based on sexual-orientation or gender-identity, but it is questionable whether or not the city can require private businesses to adopt similar policies as a prerequisite for doing business with the city.

The fact that this ordinance apparently seeks to regulate private business is especially troubling.

However, this proposed ordinance appears to be completely unnecessary for two reasons.

First, there is no objective evidence at this point that people in Little Rock are being hired or fired based on their sexual-orientation or gender-identity. In that sense, this is a solution in search of a problem.

And second, the City of Little Rock already has a policy in place preventing employment decisions based on sexual-orientation and gender-identity.

The official Administrative Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual for the City of Little Rock says,

“It is the policy of the City not to discriminate in its employment and personnel practices because of a person’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, veteran’s status, political opinions or affiliation. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including, but not limited to: hiring, placement, promotion, termination, layoff, recall, transfer, leave of absence, compensation, and training.” (Emphasis added)

This proposed ordinance seems absolutely unnecessary in light of the fact that Little Rock already has this policy in place. With that in mind, it is unclear exactly what the City of Little Rock hopes to accomplish.

READ MORE