Final answer:
A scientific theory must indeed be supported by empirical evidence, which separates it from a mere hypothesis. It evolves and is upheld through rigorous testing and is an integral and well-supported component of the scientific community's body of knowledge. A theory remains distinct from a scientific law, despite its long-standing acceptance or the breadth of evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
True, a scientific theory must be supported with empirical evidence. A theory is much more than a set of educated guesses. It is a well-developed set of scientific explanations that has been repeatedly tested and supported by many experiments.
A hypothesis starts with less evidence and through research can evolve into a theory if it consistently finds supporting evidence. In science, a hypothesis and a theory are distinct, with the hypothesis being an initial conjecture that can be tested through experimentation and observations. Therefore, not just any guess can be considered a theory – it must be rigorously and consistently supported by empirical data.
The scientific method is integral to developing a theory, and each theory is subject to further questioning and testing within the scientific community. This process includes independent verification and must fit within the accepted conceptual framework of the field. Data that do not support a hypothesis is still useful, as it informs and refines scientific inquiry. Contrary to becoming a law with time, a theory remains a theory regardless of its age; it does not transform into a law. Scientific laws typically describe relationships under certain conditions in nature and do not share the explanatory power that theories provide.