[tx_eggman]

many people seem to think that it implies a status of little more than a guess

I'm not in that camp ... but neither am I in the camp where "theory" (as you call it) is a weighty a word to me as, say,

"Theorem" when used in the context of Bayes Theorem or DeMoivre's Theorem

which are provable and, if relied on, produce repeatable results.

We, as a species, even as far as we have "progressed", are still woefully ignorant of the workings of our universe.

[Dimensio]

but neither am I in the camp where "theory" (as you call it) is a weighty a word to me as, say,

"Theorem" when used in the context of Bayes Theorem or DeMoivre's Theorem

Theorems apply to mathematical constructs, not scientific explanations. Scientific explanations rise to the level of "theory" and no higher. "Theory" implies an extremely high level of confidence in an explanation, and theories will never graduate to anything "higher". Theories are the end-points of scientific inquiry (though inquiry continues to occur at the theory level, to either refine or, if necessary, overturn the theory).

[101st-Eagle]

We, as a species, even as far as we have "progressed", are still woefully ignorant of the workings of our universe

Well said. I still can never get palatable answers to such simple questions such as: "what process put the matter there that exploded and expanded in the Big Bang in the first place?" First cause, infinity, etc., are profound questions/concepts I find atheists dancing around with dogmatic proclamations such as, "it's just that way, don't you understand?" Sheesh, you would think they would have come up with just as lofty of an explanation for that as for the origin of species.