From what I learned in my earliest years in science, as long as science cannot explain something it remains a theory and not a fact.
Incorrect.
Theories do not turn into facts. Facts exist independently. Theories are a framework in which facts are explained and related.
You cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. You can accumulate enough evidence for a theory that it would be perverse to not accept it, but it's still not "proven".
To play off your gravity analogy: things falling is a fact. Mass attracting mass is a fact. There have been several theories which have tried to explain this fact. Newton's is good for small systems, but was found to be incorrect at larger scales. For that, Einstein's worked a lot better.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I learned in my earliest years in science, as long as science cannot explain something it remains a theory and not a fact.
Incorrect.
Theories do not turn into facts. Facts exist independently. Theories are a framework in which facts are explained and related.
You cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. You can accumulate enough evidence for a theory that it would be perverse to not accept it, but it's still not "proven".
To play off your gravity analogy: things falling is a fact. Mass attracting mass is a fact. There have been several theories which have tried to explain this fact. Newton's is good for small systems, but was found to be incorrect at larger scales. For that, Einstein's worked a lot better.
It wouldn't surprise me if the idea existed long before Behe...
It did. Before "Intelligent Design" it was known as the "God of the Gaps" argument. Rephrasing it in big words doesn't make it any more valid.