Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity a caricature of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, and of Judeo-Christianity in general?

It may be significant that in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, in the Judeo-Christian Bible, God must create light, before time itself can be defined, and before the structure of the Universe can be defined, and before life can be created. Because, effectively, Einstein's Theory of Relativity also makes light the basis for the passage of time, and for the existence of time itself, and for the occurrence of all events and structure in the Universe. That said, once light is created by God in Genesis I, light ceases to play any part in the regulation of time, rather, light becomes simply a highly regular manifestation of the passage of time. And the structure of the Universe is determined by God, not in any way by light. In Einstein's model, in contrast, light defines the limits of time and space, and light is, effectively, the primary basis and determinant of both. It's rather as if God said "Let there be light. And light controls everything, from now on!" This distinction is actually rather significant in terms man's role in the Universe. As we know, Genesis I makes Man in the image of God, thus implying that Man, like God, can create and control the Universe at his will, ultimately, anyway. And this aspect of Judeo-Christianity is one of its most unique features -- Man is limitless, and all-powerful, as God himself is. In contrast, in Einstein's model, man is very much circumscribed by the speed of light, which limits where he can go, and what he can do. Arguably, what makes monotheism distinct from idolatry, is the notion that there is a single all-powerful God, and communion with said God can allow humanity to accomplish anything at all, without limits. Hence, Einstein's theory of Relativity could be seen as a step backwards towards idolatry, in terms of making Light itself an idol, which man cannot transcend, or move. Now, from a Priest's point of view, there are indeed advantages to being the servant of an idol, rather than an all-powerful God. After all, an idol is just an idol, nobody ever said an idol was all powerful. So, I would say, in general, much less might be expected from the Priests of Idols, than might be expected from Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis, or Muslim Mullahs. All the Priest of an idol has to argue, is that he made things a bit better than they might have been otherwise. What more can be expected from a mere idol? The bar is much lower than for a monotheistic priest, who is supposed to have access to an all powerful God, who can accomplish absolutely anything at all. Now, prior to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, we had Isaac Newton's model of the Universe, in which space and time were absolute. Very much along the lines of Judeo-Christianity, and the Bible. Isaac Newton was, of course, a deeply religious man. In such a Universe, man in general, and scientists in particular, could be expected to accomplish absolutely anything, if they really set their minds to it. This put quite a bit of pressure on scientists, of course. Is it at all possible that Albert Einstein was trying to relieve this pressure a bit? And, is it at all possible, that making science much more limited in what it could possibly accomplish, returning science to idolatry, and away from monotheism, was rather appealing to quite a lot of University scientists, who preferred steady, undemanding employment, to having to accomplish great things on a regular basis? Certainly, physicists and chemists seem very attached indeed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, although I'm not sure even other hard scientists like biologists and mathematicians have much faith in it. Indeed, physicists can become quite hysterical when anyone questions this theory. Almost as if Albert Einstein was the Prophet of a Great Religion in which they have absolute faith, that must never be questioned. The evidence most cited as "proof" of Einstein's theory these days is the fact that GPS requires very small corrections on the order of microseconds on the hour when calculations are based on satellites outside of the Earth's gravitational field. Einstein's General theory of Relativity predicts effects something like this, although the actual correlations to the data are rather crude. However, all this really proves, is that gravity has some rather small, not particularly well understood effects on the mechanism of atomic clocks. Doesn't imply any effect on time, at all, really. We have some extremely clear disproofs of Relativity in modern physics and science itself. The Big Bang that commenced the Universe is supposed to have occurred from an initial Black Hole singularity. However, Einstein tells us that nothing can happen in a Black Hole, because gravity is too strong to release light, so time itself stops. How do physicists explain this? They don't. They say that, perhaps, Relativity didn't apply back then. So much for the "laws" of Physics! Currently, the Parker Solar Probe is accelerating to hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, and should be experiencing time dilations of several seconds a year, according to Relativity. They aren't there. You could do a Freedom of Information Request from NASA, to confirm this. The physicists will claim their clocks aren't accurate enough, but this is false. So, is it possible that theologians could have a role here? Could theologians point out to physicists that they are actually turning into idolators, out of sheer laziness, and that they should become monotheists, once more, as Isaac Newton himself was?