Time for a movie review.
I’ve only seen “Spider-Man: No Way Home” once, and that was a few months ago, but this will be an in-depth review with everything you need to know.
It was a great movie and we enjoyed it – especially when the audience burst into wild cheers at a few key moments.
Promotional material calls the latest Spider-Man movie sci-fi. This genre traditionally explains plot devices by technology, human ingenuity.
When the writers create a fictional setting, they must solve and explain basic problems like seeing in the dark (“Journey to the Center of the Earth”), breathing underwater (“Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”) or navigating enormous distances faster than the speed of light.
Star Trek solved this problem by saying that future generations will create a vehicle that, through technology, can achieve “warp speed”. Press a button on the bridge and suddenly the stars are flying by in a blur. You see, we told you how we did it! With science.
It’s interesting, because the latest Spider-Man movie, the ninth in 20 years, claims to be science fiction.
However, a character waves his hands, says the magic words, cool special effects occur, colored energy circles appear, and the plot explainer device appears: the main warp speed of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” is a new theory. called the multiverse (infinite universes where eventually everything will happen). It works very well in this film and is the source of much of its charm and, amusingly, gives meaning to the last 20 years of Spider-Man films.
But why use magic as an explanatory tool?
The best explanation for the scientific discoveries of the last century is an intelligent creator, rather than the insane chance of macroevolution. But scientists attached to materialism cannot accept this. Even Einstein balked at the implications of his findings and refused to acknowledge them for years because they showed that the universe had a beginning that we believe dates back 13.8 billion years. He ultimately called his irrational refusal his greatest stupidity.
Even though we live in a Goldilocks universe, where physical laws and constructs are right, many scientists just don’t want to accept the implication. Biologist Richard Lewontin said: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that run counter to common sense is the real key to the fight…we have a prior commitment to materialism…for we cannot not allow a divine foot to step through the door.”
Physicist Paul Davies said: ‘The design impression is overwhelming… What is truly astonishing is not that life on Earth is poised on a knife’s edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on the razor’s edge, and would be total chaos if anyone’s natural “constants” were even slightly off. »
On the precision needed for both the strong nuclear force and the rate of expansion of the universe, astrophysicist Hugh Ross uses this analogy: Cover North America in dime. Throw in a red one. What is the probability that a blindfolded person chooses red? But no. Add more pennies until the pile reaches the moon. Even that is not accurate. You would need to hide the dime in a billion stacks from North America to the moon and have the blindfolded person pull out the red dime.
Choose the wrong penny and the universe ceases to exist.
Physicist-philosopher Robin Collins uses the metaphor of a measuring tape. Stretch it over the entire universe and mark a line in a specific measurement representing the force of gravity. If you missed the target by a tiny fraction, the universe would never have formed at all.
The famous scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle said: “A sensible interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has misused physics, as well as chemistry and biology…the facts seem so damning as to put this conclusion out of the question.”
Science journalist Clifford Longley put it this way: When considering whether the evidence points to random change or an intelligent creator, it “is of such an order of certainty that in any other sphere of science it would be considered as established. To insist otherwise is like insisting that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare because it could have been written by a billion monkeys sitting at a billion keyboards typing for a billion years. So it could be that the sight of scientific atheists clinging to such desperate straws” reveals their refusal to recognize that a spirit could be behind the words.
So why popularize a clumsy and unprovable theory that is not supported by any evidence?
Because they cannot bear the responsibility that comes with believing in God.
So that’s my full review of the latest Spider-Man movie. Go see him. It’s great fun, but don’t expect science in your fiction.
Phil Cook is a teacher, works in northern Michigan with Biglife, an international discipleship ministry, and sits on the board of Sunrise Mission in Alpena.