I really don't know why I bother to type this. It's been said a million times, and it's not really helpful.
Paul.
You can come up with an idea and call it a hypothesis, even without evidence - that doesn't constitute a theory; but you can then set about accumulating evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have a measure of success, then you can call it a theory. It may turn out to be a strong theory or a weak theory depending upon how substantial the evidence. Then again, if you find no evidence at all, then it remains a baseless hypothesis, and does not constitute a theory in the scientific sense.
Then again, if you take the texts of the Bible as evidence because you believe them to have been provided by the Almighty, then why bother discussing science? You can fill the knowledge gap instantly, without recourse to rationality and logic. It has been done for millennia, after all. The only reason that springs to mind for opposing science is that it threatens a precarious and untenable theology.
I apologise if that sounds offensive. It's not intended to be.
