Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.
EURGH! i hate sematics.
Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.
the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means
that it is accepted by the scientific community.
I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory
of evolution and not the Laws
of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.
If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.
"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.
Please don't quote Wikipedia at me when I've personally studied, and continue to study, physics, biology and chemistry at college.
I don't deny evolution, I believe in it whole heartily, but the laws in that quote refer to established
laws which were, yes, contracted from theories themselves.
A law generalises a group of observations. When the observation is made, no exceptions have been forms to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
For example, Newton's Law of Gravity can be used to predict
the behaviour of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As such, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
However, if your definition of proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.