Hello Sub Zone.
The formal definition is above the specific usage of the word within any ideology, regardless of the perceived importance of that ideology.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of the word, 'theory', a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
This is the primary meaning of the word, any ideology should endeavor to conform to the primary definition given above.
Science is itself an ideology, the basic idea that observing an event, will lead to an explanation of that event. That is a pure ideology, nothing more, nothing less. We lack the means to verify absolutely, whether observational data has any bearing on any truth statements formed to match the data.
Within the ideology of science, a scientific theory is a best fit explanation of the data. The simplest and most practical explanation of any data set (theory), this of course never implies that any scientific theory is a correct theory.
Thousands of observation can be lodged to support a theory, yet if one contradiction occurs, then the theory is redundant.
I see that you are a strong believer in the ideology.
Your statement is true, if and only if, the ideology of science is true. If the observational data is only a partial set of some expanded data set, then the theory will unfortunately be an invalid theory. I have no respect for any scientific theory, they are temporary phenomena at best.
I think that the problem is that you are comparing apples with oranges. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and it is, like all scientific theories, vulnerable to being disproved by new evidence.
However, the rival idea, namely the belief in supernatural creation by a God, is not a scientific theory, since there is no way in which it can be tested, nor can it be falsified, even in principle. God could have created the universe in six days, with varved sediments, fossils embedded in the rocks, white dwarf stars, supernova remnants, and all the other evidence of a long history, already present. There is no possible way of disproving this idea, therefore it is not a scientific theory.
If the theory of evolution were to be disproved, it would be replaced by a new scientific theory based on natural processes, equally vulnerable to disproof by new evidence, and, presumably, equally unacceptable to creationists. It would not be replaced by a theory of supernatural creation by a God. Thus, if the theory of evolution were to be disproved, creationists would still be in the same position that they are in now.
Of course, other scientific theories, such as the theories of electromagnetism, thermodynamics, stellar dynamics, and elementary particle physics, are just as susceptible to disproof by new evidence as the theory of evolution. Do you think that scientists ought to abandon these theories and adopt creationist or Biblical electromagnetism, thermodynamics,
etc.?
The one part of modern young-Earth-creationism that is testable by the scientific method is flood geology, the belief that the sedimentary rocks, with their fossils, was deposited by Noah's flood. This hypothesis was conclusively disproved in about 1830, nearly 200 years ago. Scientifically, it is as dead as phlogiston theory and the theory that comets are phenomena in the Earth's atmosphere. This demonstrates the truth of your remark about scientific theories being temporary phenomena, but it is strange that so many young Earth creationists adhere to this exploded scientific theory.
)
