[Dimensio]

That is HOW it works. You are asking WHY it works that way.

I apologize for not being clear enough.

We don't have a law for that, just a theory.

Of course we don't have a law. Laws don't explain why things in the universe happen as they do; that's the purpose of theories. Theories explain why things happen, laws explain what happens.

The theory is mostly checking out, but it has not been confirmed enough.

What would "confirm" it "enough"? What would happen once that "confirmation" is found?

The General Theory of Evolution (recall Darwin posited both a Special and a General Theory) is a theory that has less evidence, and is less universally accepted, than General Theory of Relativity.

Less evidence only to those who dismiss what they don't like because they fear the implications, and it's only less accepted because many of those who accept relativity don't actually understand it (just like they don't understand evolution), but they don't think that it contradicts their religious beliefs, so they don't dismiss it out of hand without even the slightest examination.

[Ahban]

I accept your apology in a spirit of good fellowship.

I don't wish to be side tracked into a discussion on General Relativity and Gravity. I am giving you the textbook definitions of Theory and Law. A hypothesis, if confirmed by observation and experiment, becomes a Theory. A Theory that has been confirmed with every test over a long period of time and is generally accepted as true becomes a Law.

Theories about the way events unfolded in the past and are claimed to take extremely long periods of time in order to be observed today (like macroevolution) will be extremely hard to confirm and gain the acceptence that is needed for them to become a Law, even absent religious protestations. Even without them, General Evolution simply is not as establised as the things we call laws. I do not say that from rancour, it is just fact.