Feivel wrote: “A scientific theory….. is an explanation that accounts for the facts observed.
you have to understand, however, that a basic principle of science is that: “just because: if a particular explanation were true, then that would explain the observed facts, does NOT make the theory true or even likely.”
for example:
my car didnt start today
well if it were the case that an escaped monkey poured some sugar in my gastank that WOULD explain why my car didnt start. but it is not a proof of my monkey theory.”
While I believe that this statement is technically correct, I think it gives only a partial picture of how science works. Once the monkey poured sugar in my gas tank theory is formulated, a scientist would set about to test it. And while tests will never be conclusive, the will make something more likely. If you formulate the theory that your engine is not starting because a monkey poured sugar in your gas tank, the next step to test this theory would be to leave your monkey, uncaged, with an open box of sugar in your garage for a certain amount of days, and also leave your car in the garage without the monkey and sugar for a certain number of days as a control. If everytime you left the monkey and sugar with the car, it failed to start, that would make it more likely, although not conclusive that the monkey theory is correct, particularly if on the days in the control group, the car started.
You’re making it sound as if scientists just make up the most ridiculous thing they can find to explain an observable phenomenon, and that’s not the case. Before a theory is accepted as a good (but by nature, not definitive) theory, it is subject to rigorous testing.