Every once in a while I run across somebody on the internet trying to explain the meaning of "law" and "theory" in science. Usually they say something about how a law states a relationship between quantities whereas a theory tries to explain it, or vice versa, or that a law is older than a theory, or how a law is supported by different kinds of observations, or some such thing. While I appreciate that people are making the effort to discredit the idea that evolution isn't accepted because it's "just a theory," I really think they're going about it the wrong way.
The real difference between a law and a theory is much simpler: there is none. They're just labels. They don't mean anything.
Yes. there are some ideas in science that are traditionally called laws, and some that are traditionally called theories. It's mostly a historical accident which are which. There are also ideas that go by either label with roughly equal frequency, or "law" sometimes and "theory" other times depending on context, or on who you're talking to, or on something else. The point is, there's no consensus in the scientific community that "law" means one thing and "theory" means something else. In my experience, people who know what they're talking about are not at all particular about the meanings of "law" and "theory." Again, they're just labels, and the label you give something is meaningless. You can't conclude anything about the level of empirical support an idea has based on whether it's called a law or a theory or something else - you have to actually examine the evidence.