Can a 'Scientific Theory' also be referred to as a 'Scientific 'Law?

The words ‘hypothesis,’ ‘model,’ ‘theory’ and ‘law’ can each have different connotations (Homonymic) in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

For example, the term ‘theory’, as used in the ‘Theory of (Macro)-Evolution’ or ‘Dinosaur Extinction,’ has a far different definition than the one used to describe the ‘General Theory of Relativity.’

A scientific theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which experience on-going peer-scrutiny by means of repeated experimental tests. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a ‘theory’.

Although ‘Relativity’ is as well known as ‘Gravity,’ because it cannot be factually proven it continues to be identified as a ‘theory.’ Nevertheless, there is a clear distinction between the ‘General Theory of Relativity’ and the ‘Theory of Evolution’ – ‘Macro-Evolutionary Theory’ is just not credible enough to be placed on the shelf next to ‘Relativity’ and so in this case the term (theory) has two very-different applications – it’s relationship to Relativity closer resembles a scientific law, whereas it’s relationship to Macro-Evolutionary theory closer resembles the historic, true-definition of the word as more of an unobserved, unprovable, or unverifiable idea.

If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, the ‘theory’ must be rejected or modified. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. Over a period of time – often numerous years, accepted scientific ‘theories,’ that are consistent with the known laws of the universe, can become laws themselves, which influence our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge.

Theories’ are not easily discarded; new discoveries are often assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. If it can’t be modified and better explained – again, often after numerous years, it may then be discarded. This is where Macro-Evolution should be today as it is nearly bankrupt in its predictions yet, those strong in their faith of the unobservable, the unverifiable, and the untestable, continue to fuel its fantasy.

Other disciplines to consider:

The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

An ‘hypothesis’ is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; or "This is really not my car.")

So in essence, the term ‘theory’ can be interpreted as a law but only when it is applied to certain disciplines such as ‘Relativity’ or ‘Gravity.’ It cannot equally be defined to ‘macro-evolution’ simply because of the thousands of predictions made, not one single event has ever been confirmed to be true. It is when secularists equally apply the term that many are deceived into thinking all theories have an equal weighting in the credibility factor and that is just simply not true.

‘Macro-evolution’ is nothing other than a thought (it is important to note here that micro-evolution is an observable known fact, macro-evolution is hocus-pocus).

Here are some obvious contradictions between evolution and the Bible: