The list of definitions I posted is not in any particular order--it grew as I added more and more definitions. I am repeating the pertinent ones again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Note that a theory does not grow up to be a law. A law is very simple, and often a description of observed events. A theory attempts to explain the events and how they interrelate.
Also, a theory is not a starting point. You don't sit down and say, this is my theory in science. You propose hypotheses and test them. If you get a lot of successful tests you can form a theory from them. A well-tested and well-supported theory is the goal of science because it explains things.
This is where ID fails as a theory. There is no testing being done; there is simply nothing resembling the scientific method to ID.
At the most, there are hypotheses; where they could be tested at all, they have been shown to be incorrect. Don't pass go, don't advance to theory.
OK. Thanks.
So it goes from hypothesis to theory. But a law can stand on its own? I thought a theory when is tested and retested over and over again and is proven correct, it then becomes a law.
I'll try to remember this distinction between theory and law.