No scientist worth ANYTHING would ever present “proof” of a controversial theory. Even theories that are more or less “proven” remain labeled theories because other, as yet undiscovered, explanations could exist.
Additionally, any scientific theory that sounds straight out of a Star Trek episode I feel the need to almost automatically reject, despite the fact that I personally love science fiction. Talking about electron spin and quantum mechanics doesn’t have anything to do with alternate realities or time travel.
Last night I was reading a CREVO thread. The contrast with this one is striking. It was the usual suspects hurling insults at one another, talking about how ID cannot be a theory or how Darwinism is only a theory, not a fact, etc.
If I accept your statement here (and I do), I see the basis for pursuing any theory to try to match data and observation to it, rather than simply saying that is can't be. I wonder how the CREVO discussions would be different if the would only take your approach... let's set up the theories and look at the evidence and continue to challenge both theories. It will never be settled, but inquiry could continue on both theories.
Ah well, perhaps that is happening in one of those parallel universes.
Even theories that are more or less “proven” remain labeled theories because other, as yet undiscovered, explanations could exist.The word "theory" doesn't say anything about whether an idea is "proven" or not.
Theory and fact are not rungs on a ladder, with fact being higher than theory. They are two different things.
Facts are what we see. Theories are our explanation for the facts. Even when the explanation is backed up by trillions of pieces of fact, and is basically irrefutable (such as the theory of evolution), it still remains a theory, because that's what it is, a theory, an explanation.