Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID and popular culture: Oscar-winning megastar Morgan Freeman on ID

arroba Email
File:Morgan Freeman, 2006.jpg
Morgan Freeman/David Sifry

From news writer O’Leary: You can sure tell that “intelligent design” is becoming a familiar concept in popular culture when you read this at HuffPo:

Do you believe in “intelligent design?”

No. Let me clarify that answer. Because intelligent design is exactly what we see. But does that come from some being? I think life itself is intelligent. I don’t think necessarily that a creator had to be involved.

Was there a particular purpose in including “intelligent design” in the episode?

You can’t go on any show and say, “I can say what I believe but I can’t say what is.” I don’t know what is. We want to present both sides of any–because it is all predicated on faith. It is what you believe. And on this show we want to accept all ideas and be inclusive.

So you don’t believe that a “creator” is responsible for life?

Now, you are talking to Morgan Freeman, actor. You are not talking to Morgan Freeman, scientist, or Morgan Freeman, theologian, or any of that, OK? Well, I really don’t think there is an entity involved in the creation of the universe.

Three things jump out here: Freeman’s idea that intelligence is inherent in the universe itself has a long and respectable history, particularly in Eastern philosophy. Not sure I would go so far as to call it pantheism in all cases. An intelligence in nature itself is not necessarily God or even a god. That is a matter of interpretation.

Freeman has noticed the intelligence and is too smart to try to explain it away. I like his caution and his insistence on speaking for himself; it is a good beginning to serious study. But actually, evidence for design is, well, evidence, not mere faith. We leave faith in faith alone to the theistic evolutionists (Darwin’s Christians).

It’s encouraging that he recognizes that the main justification for discussing ID on his new cosmology program is public interest. I hope he doesn’t get railroaded into simply coughing up the Word of the Beard = Darwinist talking points, enforced via threats of boycotts, letter writing campaigns, canned editorials against him …

With Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt listed as a New York Times bestseller, the time to be intimidated by that stuff is past. If you really are a Darwin troll, rant and bawl and try to get stuff suppressed. But increasingly, no one is making you do it except you.

Why is what he think more to be noted then the guy over there?? Actors are not more able to weigh the evidence about great matters then anyone else. Some of them a lot less. Case in point is Morgan Freeman obviously. Robert Byers
Though I enjoy Morgan Freeman's show, 'Through The Wormhole' very much, I have to admit that many times Freeman does not get the full implications of what the scientists are saying to him in the show. Case in point, in the following video clip Freeman injects a some of his personal philosophy into the interpretation of the double slit. A personal interpretation that does not follow from what Anton Zeilinger actually says in the clip: Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0 Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video: "The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." Anton Zeilinger Instead of some 'inherent intelligence' that Freeman would hold, what actually does follow from what Dr. Zeilinger says about the double slit is this: Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html Or put more simply: "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html footnotes: Divinely Planted Quantum States - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck Planck was a devoted Christian from early life to death, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God. bornagain77

Leave a Reply