There are alot of things going on in a supernova, some you can study in a lab and some you can't. You have to break down a phenomenon that like that into it's component processes.
Some natural phenomenon is not easily replicable so you have to make do with observing it when it occurs, this would seem to apply to something like supernovae.
You can construct hypothetical models using mathematics on a computer, but note the term - hypothetical ie hypothesis. It's not a theory til it's been observed, documented and repeated.
The scientific method is an exercise in inductive reasoning - from the specific to the general. Your conclusions do not always flow from the premises because there can be unknowns at work that makes your process invalid. The classic example. Deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific, its conclusions follow from the premises: eg All men are mortal (distributed major premise) Socrates is a man (undistributed minor premise) Socrates is mortal (undistributed conclusion) Induction is the opposite: eg. Socrates is mortal (undistributed major) Socrates is a man (undistributed minor) All men are mortal (distributed conclusion *** INVALID***) So you need a whole bunch of socrates to say there is enough evidence is presume all men are mortal but even that isn't "proof"
Then it would be call a FACT.
A theory is established if, based on its premises, its predictions can be observed. The problem with ID is that it makes no predictions that can later be observed.
The main arguments go along the line of "... oh, things are so complicated, we can't IMAGINE how they came about from a few basic principles..."
Lucky for us all that the Creator is smarter than they..
Trust me, if there were COMPELLING EVIDENCE to dislodge Darwin, a whole generation of biologists would be on it like white on rice.
And evolution. There you go.
That is COMPLETELY wrong. Theories are well developed, elaborated and supported explanatory hypotheses. They explain observed phenomena by the means of some model or mechanism. It is typical in the history of science that these models or mechanisms are set forth without having first been directly observed in themselves. In fact it's not uncommon for them never to be directly observed, even with respect to highly fruitful scientific theories.
For example genetic theory was successful, extremely useful and universally accepted decades before anyone could point to an actual gene, or knew what they were made of, or knew where in the cell they were located.
Great thoughts kjvail. Peace to you, man.