This is certainly not the case. Perhaps my quibbling over vocabulary here is spreading more confusion than light - and I shall desist if confusion persists, but not before one more attempt.
I was not objecting against our confidences in things we consider very well-established - what you are labeling as “law”. That confidence and alleged universal applicability over time is not one whit lessened by anybody’s insistence on clarifying our vocabulary around it. We all want our clean distinctions between well-sorted and distinct categories. We want to imagine that there is, in the scientist’s world, a “holy-of-holies” where the undisputed Laws dwell, attended just outside by all the surrounding lesser (but still proud) “theories” not bereft of a status of their own. And milling about in the outer courtyards of the gentiles we find the lowly hypotheses and conjectures.
While this neatly organized world may exist in your imagination, it doesn’t for the scientist. There is rather, the dreaded gradient, where to be sure, some things have much higher status than others. But everything is held up for examination and there is no sacred preserve. There are merely those things that have survived (often with major modification) sustained attacks for so long that we begin to afford them a major respect as an enduring edifice - but never one that is permanently immune from overthrow, and certainly not immune from renovation.
So the necessary “sorting” function of our popular vocabulary notwithstanding, I will suggest here for at least this moment longer, that real science in practice is no respecter of these hard divisions, but is very much a respecter of survival and “lumps earned” over much time and prodding.