There is no such theory and never has been. Except in the mind of creationists.
There are many conjectures and many lines of research, and many of them are productive.
Impatience is the lot of non-scientists. It has been 400 years since Galileo started investigating gravity and we still don't have a complete theory of gravity. But it's a pretty safe bet that NASA can use incomplete theories of gravity to launch interplanetary probes.
Incompleteness does not mean that magic is a reasonable alternative.
There are many conjectures and many lines of research, and many of them are productive.
js post 176: I read quite a bit about the subject [string theory]in pop science media and have never seen it treated as anything but controversial. Not just as to whether it is “true,” but as to whether it qualifies as science.
There have been at least two recent FR threads on string theory, and both support what I’m saying about this.
OK, so now you have taken both abiogenesis and cosmology out of the realm of science because they apparently, according to you, are not theories but conjecture.
The question still remains about the origin of these concepts in the first place.
Were they not proposed by scientists? If not, then what field of human endeavor proposed these concepts first?
Are scientists not looking for evidence to support them? Is scientific research not being done in these fields?
If they are not science, then what classification would they fall under?
Is Hawkings not a scientist?
Like socialist Democrats who expect their revealed Marxist bible to explain everything, non-scientist religionists often insist that their revealed Christian bible explains everything.
They then expect science to explain everything in just as much detail.
Religions fill in the blanks with whatever they make up to fit and their "evidence" is the books they write -- fictional, cooked, or made up out of whole cloth -- without any reliance on how their story fits with the real, verifiable world. If in doubt, or if faced with a sticky problem they cop out with "God did it." or "God works in mysterious ways." Any criticism of the original revealed dogma is heresy.
Scientists may also make stuff up or make educated guesses, but they test their theories and discard that which doesn't fit with the real, verifiable world. The scientific "bible" is edited, revised, and rewritten to fit with what can be verified. Generally accepted "laws" of a hundred or a thousand years ago are often found to be unsupportable and thus are revised or discarded. All this uncertainty is not accepted by religionists who fall back on a supposedly infallible Bible.
BTW, the Bible was also edited, revised and rewritten to make for a better book to run theocracies with.