So something goes straight from hypothesis to Law then? How did Newton's Laws of motion for example, come to be considered Laws and not merely a theory of motion?
The term "law" as it applies to science is somewhat outmoded. You can still use it, but the main terms are hypothesis and theory. If a hypothesis is confirmed it might be like a law if it is mathematical or it might be just substantiated data. A theory is more broadbased in its underlying principals. Not all hypotheses become theories whether substantiated or not.
Because of Einstein's work in such things a relativity, it is now known that what were thought to be laws only apply under a set of conditions. Under other conditions they don't apply anymore.
The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to discard its findings if they are falsified. Religion cannot be falsified. It can only be argued.
My irritation with literalists is that no matter how convincing and rational arguments against their positions are, they never back off from them. For instance, once considered, my argument that you can't have a 24 hr day without the Sun is obviously true. Most of the literalists will not back away from the absurd position they hold on that.