Mark I. Vuletic

Last updated 21 March 2008

Background

In a recent article, creationist Gary DeMar footnoted the first paragraph of my guide article on whether the Big Bang was ruled out by the (presumed) fact that something cannot come from nothing. DeMar asks the reader to notice how I explain Big Bang theory by using another theory (Einstein's general theory of relativity), the implication apparently being that anything attached to the word theory is mere conjecture. So as to leave no doubt, DeMar even puts the word into boldface when he quotes me. Oh, woe, that I should thus be hoist with my own petard!

I jest, of course. The situation (as you no doubt already are aware) is not so grim.

Analysis

(i) The word theory has a specialized meaning in scientific usage that is much stronger than its colloquial meaning. In scientific circles, the word usually designates a wide explanatory framework that has reached the highest standard of confirmation by factual evidence. When scientists want to talk about a mere conjecture, they use the word hypothesis. As zoologist Tim Berra explains:

A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, often the foundation of an entire field of knowledge, and is not to be confused with the sort of "theory" we so easily propose in everyday conversation. (Berra 1990:4)

To reject the general theory of relativity as "just a theory" is at best to make a mistake comparable to saying that Copernican theory, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, the theory of continental drift, and the germ theory of disease, to name a few, are just guesses. General relativity is a theory only in the same robust scientific sense as all of these other theories. Creationism, on the other hand, is not even a theory.

(ii) So, what evidence do we have for the general theory of relativity? I'll give that one to Astronomy Notes, which presents a fine overview.

References

Berra TM. 1990. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.