Some basics: Theory and Law

I think that one of the issues that we have at the board is the differing level of education that people have in the sciences. I would like this thread to be a very general dicussion of the relationship between scientific theory/law.Rather than talk in the abstract, can we discuss a point that has come up on another board I use:Is it too difficult for you to grasp? I understand that there is no hierarchy between the two in terms of their uses to science. But prior to a law being declared a law, it is a theory. A theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence (though still not proven, only assumed to be true in order to further experimentation). Prior to Newton establishing his Law of Gravity, he had to test it. During that testing phase, the Law of Gravity was merely a working theory of his. It had to be because there's no other way for us to get a law than to gather evidence to support it. This does not necessarily follow that all theories can become laws, but all laws were at one point... theories. This is why we haven't come up with any scientific laws in a long, long time. Laws only cover the most basic things, theories are more complex and the more complex the more impossible they are to prove. As an opening question - if theories never become law, how is it that laws were at one time theories?

Thank you all for your feedback - (is there a way to reply to all?).My understanding of the situation is as you have all described it, however I have not done a good job of explaining it to someone on another site (I also thought it would be a useful discussion for those who are new to the sciences on this site)BestCharles