User blog comment:Rupert Giles/Global Navigation Update/@comment-17725354-20141203230218/@comment-25035274-20141204132801

A hypothesis is an educated guess, no proof required. A theory is an educated guess with evidence that helps to back it up.

Neither are proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, though one is closer than the other. Typically, a theory has enough evidence that it is accepted as accurate until such time as evidence arises to disprove it, at which point it's time to investigate a bit deeper.

A law, on the other hand, has such a preponderance of evidence that arguing against it simply makes you look silly unless you have some damned compelling evidence. These are generally accepted as being rather fundamental to how things work. To disprove a law, you'd pretty much have to show multiple examples of things that seem to defy that law, that cannot be proven to simply be the exception that proves the law.

As an example, the Big Bang remains a theory and not a law because there is still room for doubt. Not a lot, but some.

What I stated is based on the evidence before me. The bar meshes tolerably well with this page. Ergo it seems, based on that evidence, to have been designed for it. Making it a passable theory. Possibly an incorrect theory, but still a theory.