Religious believers have quite the love/hate relationship with Albert Einstein. Some quote the physicist鈥檚 comments about God not playing dice with the universe to support their own views 鈥� despite the fact that Einstein himself said, 鈥淚 do not believe in a personal God.鈥� One young-Earth creationist site even . Now the pendulum is swinging over to hate as Einstein goes the way of Darwin, becoming an unlikely enemy of some on the religious right.
It seems that the folks at 鈥� a sort of conservative alternative to the more familar online encyclopedia 鈥� are not fans of Einstein鈥檚 most famous theory, general relativity. In fact, they view it as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy.
The website recently drew attention to a page on the site titled . It says: 鈥淭he theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.鈥�
Advertisement
In a footnote, this comment is followed up by: 鈥淰irtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.鈥�
Does relativity really steer people away from God? Or maybe 鈥� and this is just a theory, to use their favourite phrase 鈥� the same kinds of people who study general relativity are simply less likely to consult the Bible for answers to the questions of the universe.
Action at a distance
The Conservapedia page then lists 30 counterexamples to general relativity, any of which, it claims, 鈥渟hows that the theory is incorrect鈥�. Many of these are bizarre, such as 鈥渢he action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.鈥� Apparently, Jesus鈥檚 ability to instantaneously heal a child from a distance 鈥� his healing powers travelled through space faster than the speed of light 鈥� was evidence enough to rule out Einstein鈥檚 theory. Of course, Jesus wasn鈥檛 the only one to appear to violate Einstein鈥檚 cosmic speed limit. So-called entangled quantum particles do it in labs all the time. (Church of the Entanglement, anyone?)
Scanning further pages on Conservapedia, it seems that the religious right鈥檚 beef with Einstein runs deep. Just as evolution dissenters say they are being deprived of their 鈥�academic freedom鈥�, relativity deniers claim they are now in the same boat. 鈥淒espite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities,鈥� reads the website鈥檚 main article on relativity.
In reality, general relativity has passed every experimental test to which it鈥檚 been put 鈥� but Conservapedia isn鈥檛 satisfied. They refer to a 1919 solar eclipse expedition that bore out the theory鈥檚 prediction that starlight would be bent by the sun鈥檚 gravity as 鈥渁 dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir Arthur Eddington of experimental proof of general relativity鈥�. It鈥檚 true that Eddington鈥檚 results had large uncertainties, but the experiment has been tested and retested and the data holds up every time.
Enter Obama
Read further and you will find this astonishing piece of information, clearly the smoking gun of the Einsteinian liberal conspiracy: 鈥淏arack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of 鈥榗urvature of space鈥� to promote a broad legal right to abortion鈥�.
Wait. What? The article in question is 鈥淭he Curvature of Constitutional Space: What lawyers can learn from modern physics鈥� () by Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Published in 1989 in the Harvard Law Review, the paper includes a 鈥渢hank you鈥� to Barack Obama in the acknowledgments, an unsurprising fact given that Obama was the journal鈥檚 editor at the time.
In the article, Tribe uses metaphors of space-time curvature in the context of constitutional law, including an analysis of Roe v. Wade. 鈥淚 do not address the subject because I am determined to bring science or mathematics into law,鈥� he writes. 鈥淩ather, my conjecture is that the metaphors and intuitions that guide physicists can enrich our comprehension of social and legal issues.鈥�
General relativity proposes that space-time is not an inert stage upon which the world plays out but rather a dynamic medium that is warped and curved by the presence of matter and in turn affects matter鈥檚 motion. Tribe argues that constitutional law is likewise not only the backdrop against which the nation鈥檚 affairs play out but a dynamic force that shapes those very affairs. In summary, Tribe writes, 鈥淭he question is whether the state鈥檚 combination of acts and omissions, rules, funding decisions and the like, so shaped the legal landscape in which women decide matters bearing on their reproductive lives as to violate the constitution鈥檚 postulates of liberty and equality.鈥�
鈥楾heory of invariance鈥�
Nearly two decades later, physicist Frank Tipler took on Tribe鈥檚 paper in an on the Social Science Research Network entitled 鈥淭he Obama-Tribe 鈥楥urvature of Constitutional Space鈥� Paper is Crackpot Physics鈥�. Coming from a physicist who authored the book The Physics of Christianity, in which he claims that without Jesus鈥檚 resurrection, our universe couldn鈥檛 exist, I am forced to question the meaning of 鈥渃rackpot鈥�. It鈥檚 no matter, though, because Tribe鈥檚 grasp of general relativity is irrelevant 鈥� he was not writing a scientific paper, he was merely creating an analogy. But for Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia and son of anti-abortion activist Phyllis Schlafly, the analogy was apparently enough to turn him off Einstein for good.
Despite the fact that it has passed test after test, you would be hard-pressed to find a single physicist who believes that general relativity is ultimately the correct theory of the universe. That鈥檚 because it conflicts with quantum mechanics and is yet to be unified with the other three forces of nature. A theory of quantum gravity such as string theory will be needed to pick up where Einstein left off. General relativity is certainly not wrong 鈥� but it鈥檚 not the whole story.
In the end there is no liberal conspiracy at work. Unfortunately, humanities scholars often confuse the issue by misusing the term 鈥渞elativity鈥�. The theory in no way encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think. The theory of relativity is ultimately not so much about what it renders relative 鈥� three dimensional space and one-dimensional time 鈥� but about what it renders absolute: the speed of light and four-dimensional space-time. Einstein himself lamented the name 鈥渞elativity鈥�, wishing instead to call his theory the theory of invariance. The name change might have avoided this whole mess.
