Final answer:
The Core Accretion Theory will not evolve into a scientific law because theories and laws serve different purposes in science. Theories explain, while laws describe patterns in data. The theory can gain greater acceptance as more evidence supports it, not by changing into a law.
Step-by-step explanation:
How does the Core Accretion Theory stand in terms of becoming a scientific law, and what additional evidence would be required for this theory to potentially evolve into a more established scientific principle? This question seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what scientific laws and theories represent in the scientific community.
It's important to clarify that a scientific theory is a well-established explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Theories are not rudimentary ideas awaiting promotion to the status of laws; they are comprehensive explanations of observed phenomena.
A scientific law, on the other hand, is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the universe. Laws predict what happens under certain conditions, but they don't explain why things happen.
Thus, the Core Accretion Theory, which is the leading explanation for the formation of planets in our solar system, will never become a scientific law because theories and laws are distinct types of knowledge. For the theory to become more established, additional evidence would need to support it, and it must remain consistent with all observed phenomena related to planet formation.
However, remember that scientific knowledge is always provisional. Even laws and theories supported by centuries of experiments can be modified in the face of new discoveries, particularly when emerging technologies allow us to observe previously unobservable aspects of the universe.