Quite correct, a theory can (and should have) demonstrable proof behind it. A hypothesis is the accurate word for an unproven theory. Evolution is an unproven theory and has been so since its inception. There is absolutely no proof for the hypothesis of evolution in Darwin and science has been disproving Darwinian theory almost since its inception.
Really? Tell me, then, why do we scientific geek types bother constructing elaborate phylogenetic charts showing the relationship between various organisms (usually with respect to a single gene), how similar they are and how long ago they diverged, if the theory underlying the charts is false? So many biochemical observations support the theory; please enlighten me as to the experimental data or observations which disprove it? Keep in mind that while a theory cannot be conclusively proven (it's like proving a negative), it can be disproven by a single well-planned experiment. If such an experiment exists, I am as well qualified as anyone to judge its validity and scientific merit.
You are persistently incorrect in you claims that scientific theories can, are or should be "proven". I and others have repeatedly given you both logic reasons why scientific theories cannot be "proven," and have provided you with historical examples of scientific facts and theories that where once considered as strongly verified but later proven incorrect.
I'm not going to engage in the wearying task of reprising those arguments or examples. (Three days from now, true to your inimitable form, you would just be pretending you never heard them and repeating the same arguments and assertions unmodified.) Instead its your turn to demonstrate your claim:
Please list three substantive theories, from any branch of natural science, that you consider to be demonstrably "proven".
No, a hypothesis is
"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."Evolution is in part a theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "A hypothesis ins't a set of principles or statements, only a tentative explanation. A nypothesis hasn't been tested yet and cannot make predictions. Redefining science, the hallmark of the creationist. Or neo-creationist ("Intelligent Design") for that matter.
There is absolutely no proof for the hypothesis of evolution in Darwin and science has been disproving Darwinian theory almost since its inception.
Where did you get that from? If science had been disproving Darwin even since, there would be no Theory of Evolution now. It is only because of these 100+ years of science confirming his hypotheses that we have something called a "Theory of Evolution." But what can you expect, even Jehova's Witnesses were denying germ theory not too long ago.