For all practical purposes (and with all due respect to Coyoteman, and science in general) that's exactly what theory means.
Here's the definition (per Coyoteman's post) of theory again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Take particular note of the underlined:
"A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."
That means, no matter how well substantiated the explanation is; no matter how organized and accepted the system of knowledge may be; no matter how many facts or laws are incorporated; no matter how testable the priniciples are; no matter how long the accepted history and the confidence it inspires....It all, very well, could be a false premise. which again, for all practical purposes, amounts to nothing more than speculation and conjecture...regardless of how complex, impressive, or elegant it may seem to be.
You are arguing from wishful thinking rather than a rational basis.
If all of the tests have been supporting a particular theory, for, say, 150 years, do you think its safe to bet the rent money against that theory?
Take a look at the changes in the overall theory of evolution in the last, say, 50, years. Not much, eh? Minor details here and there, some elaboration in particular areas. Even the entire field of genetics did not change any important details.
Nothing I would be willing to bet the rent money against. But maybe you like the long odds...
In other words, it's only as good as the next piece of evidence, or the next, possibly more compelling, theory. Darwinism is the only scientific theory that seems to be immune to questioning and critical inquiry.
A theory isn't a premise.
"A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."
The correspondence principle applies to established theories. Those are theories that are backed with substantial evidence. What that means is that the old theory must appear as a special case of any newer, more general theory.