One could point out the current scientific community it doing just that. Eistein put out a theory not a law. If some puts out a competing theory it is almost instantly rejected because it would conflict with Eistein's theory or scientific communities opinion of it.
General and special theories of relativity are indeed theories but it is wrong to assume that if scientific community calls something theory that is instantly dubious. Evolution is also called theory but does that mean it is not happening?
This is from Wiki
In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework — derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Another name for this theory is classical electromagnetism. Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting the fact that they are today taken as granted. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested as yet..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#In_physics
In terms of Special relativity it envisages time and space as single construct where each point in space can be uniquely identified in those four parameters [x, y, z, t] i.e. three dimensions of space and one of time. Looking at the universe through that theoretical model enables us to uniquely and accurately predict what is happening in universe to put it simply. It is a mathematical model, i.e. a theory, but theory that is testable. One of the prime examples of general relativity is prediction of black holes and it is only in recent years that we had tantalizing glimpses that they indeed do exist, before that we had only theoretical model that predicted them.
I'm sure if someone comes up with a model that is testable and even more accurate science will embrace it wholeheartedly like they embraced ideas of a simple Swiss clerk almost a hundred years ago that toppled "almighty Newton" that stood for several hundred years before that.
But I understand your concern, it is just that so many who claim that have come upon something better hardly ever submit their theories to their peers to have them tested, which is the only way to have them verified.
Most prominent example is John Hutchinson and his so called Hutchinson effect. It is just that he can hardly reproduce any of what he claims and we in the end don't know if Hutchinson effect is him walking across the room or if there is really some substance to what he claims.
