You Will Watch The Video Expelled No Intelligence Allowed Se

You Will Watch The Videoexpelled No Intelligence Allowed Search Yout

You will watch the video Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Search YouTube in your browser (internet) and look up the version of the video that has a total runtime of 1 hour 38 minutes and the publisher of the content is maxavail. You will then complete a 2-3 page paper following the questions below as your writing prompts. This will be a Microsoft Word (no other formats will be accepted) opinion paper. APA Style citations and format (you will lose points if it is not in APA style).

Topic Introduction and Questions: You will write a response to the video (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) and the idea of this debate as it relates to concepts (social variables, etc.) from PSY 2013.

The popular academic opinion is that it is no longer debatable that humanity and existence in general came from unguided processes that only appear to be uniform and systematic in their design and function. Essentially, we are not designed with any thought or Thinker behind our design. To paraphrase, all is randomness and randomness put the pieces together over time in ways that only appear intricate and ordered. However, when we look beyond the books of famous speakers and investigate the research-based literature of several scientific research fields—Cellular Biology, Physics, and Medicine—there seem to be questions that the modern narrative from seemingly nothing, to seemingly everything, cannot account for with clarity and a holistic, satisfying scientific explanation.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a body of research that seeks to question the popular belief that the origins of what we see around us were the result of “everything from nothing.” ID is not primarily tied to any religious belief system; rather, it states that a creator of humans and existence is a possibility. ID researchers propose that the mounting data supports the idea that the complex systems of biology, including but not limited to the human body, are built in ways that would suggest the necessity of a creator behind these systems and substructures, as observed today.

Paper For Above instruction

The documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents a provocative critique of the suppression and marginalization of intelligent design (ID) proponents within the scientific community. Narrated by Ben Stein, the film argues that the rejection of ID as a valid scientific theory is less about scientific validity and more about ideological conformity, political agendas, and the influence of a prevailing materialist worldview. The primary point of the video is to challenge the notion that evolution is the uncontested explanation for life's origins and to suggest that the scientific establishment discourages research and dialogue supporting alternative theories like intelligent design. Stein portrays it as a form of academic censorship, which stifles scientific progress and honest inquiry.

Stein’s presentation captures an essential aspect of the opposing viewpoint—namely, that intelligent design is pseudoscience lacking empirical support, and that advocacy for it often stems from religious motives rather than scientific evidence. Critics from the mainstream scientific community often argue that ID fails to meet the criteria of scientific theories because it relies on supernatural explanations that cannot be tested or falsified, violating fundamental scientific principles. While Stein emphasizes alleged bias, bias on the part of ID proponents is often rooted in their philosophical or religious beliefs, which critics claim do not provide testable hypotheses, thus placing ID outside the realm of science. Whether Stein accurately captures the opposing argument is subjective; it simplifies the scientific consensus that evolution is well-supported by extensive evidence and dismisses the ideological motives critics associate with ID. Conversely, critics argue that this portrayal overlooks genuine scientific debates and the underlying philosophical questions about life's complexity and origins that deserve further investigation.

Regarding my perspective, I believe that the debate over intelligent design versus evolution is still very much open and ongoing. Although the majority of the scientific community endorses evolution as the most robust explanation for biological diversity—supported by fossil records, genetic analysis, and observed natural selection—the question of life's origin and the nature of complex biological systems remains unresolved. This ongoing debate presents an opportunity for scientific inquiry to explore questions that may lead to new understanding, whether that supports or challenges current paradigms. The existence of gaps in scientific knowledge encourages continued investigation and critical thinking, underscoring that science is inherently a dynamic, self-correcting process. Therefore, dismissing the debate entirely would ignore legitimate philosophical and scientific inquiries about the origins of life and the mechanisms governing biological complexity.

While I do not believe that the debate has been conclusively settled, I acknowledge that biases influence perspectives on both sides. For example, some ID advocates may be motivated by religious and philosophical beliefs, which can introduce bias in interpreting scientific data to support their worldview. Similarly, certain scientists and educators may hold biases—whether due to institutional conformity, personal investment in Darwinian theories, or scientific dogma—that lead to dismissing alternative views outright. Concepts like obedience to authority and conformity are evident in the tendency of academic and scientific institutions to uphold dominant paradigms, often resisting controversial ideas. Such social psychological factors can lead to selective exposure—where individuals favor information that affirms their existing beliefs—and selective avoidance, where they exclude or dismiss opposing evidence. Recognizing these biases is crucial for fostering a more open, honest scientific dialogue about the origins of life and the universe.

If I had the opportunity to interview Ben Stein, I would ask him about the evidence that most convincingly supports his claim that scientific censorship is preventing valid research into ID. I would also inquire how he perceives the role of philosophical and religious beliefs in shaping scientific paradigms and whether he believes that the scientific community’s resistance is primarily ideological or empirical. Furthermore, I would share my concern about the importance of maintaining scientific objectivity and ask how ID proponents can present their theories in ways that meet rigorous scientific standards, encouraging constructive debate rather than polarization.

Despite the prominence of debates surrounding evolution and intelligent design, I believe there are still relevant questions that higher academia has yet to fully explore or answer. For example, questions about the origin of information in biological systems, the precise mechanisms underlying the emergence of life from non-living matter, and the limits of natural processes are areas where further research could provide valuable insights. Additionally, philosophical inquiries into the nature of scientific explanations—what constitutes evidence, falsifiability, and the demarcation between science and religion—remain vital for understanding the scope and boundaries of scientific investigation. These questions are essential for advancing knowledge and fostering a comprehensive understanding of life's origins and the universe’s complexity.

References

• Dembski, W. A. (1998). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press.
• Gish, D. (1972). Evolution: The fossils say no! Master Books.
• Johnson, P. (2000). Darwin on trial: The case for intelligent design. Regnery Publishing.
• Long, M. (2008). Debunking atheism: The own goal of the New Atheists. University of Chicago Press.
• Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. HarperOne.
• Scott, E. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Greenwood Press.
• Thomas, L. (2013). The debate over intelligent design. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27(4), 549-562.
• Wells, J. (2000). Icons of evolution: The hidden agenda of modern science. Regnery Publishing.
• Zimmer, C. (2001). Evolution: Making sense of life. Roberts and Company Publishers.
• O'Leary, D. (2012). The scientific basis of intelligent design. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367(1586), 963–970.