Examples: the atomic theory of matter is known to be correct, but because it is a conceptual description of matter, it is and always will be a theory. Ampere's Law for electrical circuits is known to be incorrect (as the presence of a capacitor will show), but it is and always will be a law, because it is a statement of observed behavior.”
I am always willing to learn. However, where did you get your definitions of laws and theories? Please cite your sources. Are you aware of any other “Laws” that have been shown to be incorrect? (I am a chemist by education, not an electrical engineer so I will take your word for Ampere’s Law being incorrect.)
However, if we use your definitions, we then run into a quandary, don’t we? How do we differentiate between the real and the ephemeral? Do we count heads and have the theory with the largest number of adherents become established fact? How do we take two unprovable theories: one being mechanistic evolution, the other positing the existence of an intelligence at the initiation of life, and deciding which one should be embraced and the other shunned? We don’t have the means to repeat the process of theory number one, and can’t order the creator to prove theory number two.
I suppose I learned them as I was being trained. Since I am a professional scientist, I think I qualify as a source on this particular matter.
Are you aware of any other “Laws” that have been shown to be incorrect?
Oh, yes. Newton's second law is incorrect (fails at large velocities). Newton's law of universal gravitation is incorrect (superseded by the theory of general relativity). Kepler's laws are incorrect (also superseded by general relativity).
However, if we use your definitions, we then run into a quandary, don’t we? How do we differentiate between the real and the ephemeral? Do we count heads and have the theory with the largest number of adherents become established fact?
Science can rarely, if ever, determine whether a theory is correct, even in principle. It can only weed out what's incorrect. Even the atomic theory of matter might be said to have been superseded by quantum mechanics, which describes the constituents of matter as waves, rather than as Democritus would have described them. (In practice, however, we simply changed our expectation of what an atom "ought" to be in light of quantum theory, notwithstanding the fact that most people still mistakenly think of them as little billiard balls in any case.)
How do we take two unprovable theories: one being mechanistic evolution, the other positing the existence of an intelligence at the initiation of life, and deciding which one should be embraced and the other shunned? We don’t have the means to repeat the process of theory number one, and can’t order the creator to prove theory number two.
Well, I don't call creationism in general a theory for exactly that reason. Specific creation models, such as the one in Genesis, can have testable consequences and thus may qualify as theories. (As it turns out, the Genesis model fails those tests rather badly, so shunning is required in that case.)
But evolution, by contrast, does have testable consequences, and it passes those tests brilliantly on two fronts: genetics and paleontology.
Furthermore, the fact that the phenomenon of evolution it isn't easily reproducible doesn't mean it can't be modelled (i.e., described by a theory). We can't reproduce a supernova or the big bang, either, but we have extremely quantitative models of both that can be tested through observation. In any case, the phenomenon of evolution is reproducible in principle if we simply observe long enough.