Can Scientific Theories be proven false?

All the time. In fact, a proper test of a hypothesis is called a "falsifiable" test.

The term is appropriate as when the hypothesis is properly tested, its test results can show it to be false. In which case, the alternative hypothesis is shown to be not false. Such is the nature of the alternative hypothesis. And there is always an alternative in proper hypothesis testing.

Due to some errors (e.g., Types I and II) in testing, which are always there, we cannot say a hypothesis is tested to be true. We can only say it is not false. While the distinction between true and not false may elude you, it's eluded lots of MS students in statistics, there is a distinction.

The most recent hypothesis that proved to be false was that of the neutrinos going faster than light speed at CERN...the OPERA experiment. The null hypothesis was that v > c, where c is light speed, for some of them; further test results showed that to be false.

BTW Religion and philosophy can prove nothing scientifically. Both are faith based disciplines, which means they do not and can not scientifically prove their assertions; so we must take them on faith.

scientific theories are good, working, explanations of physical phenomena

they have been tested repeatedly

however they do not rise to the level of scientific law

because we can still envision circumstances where the theory "might" fail

but are so far unable to access these circumstances for testing

one theory which met the axe was the corpuscular theory of light

this theory explained the behavior of light using the model of tiny particles

the diffraction of light by glass was explained by this if we could assume that light sped up as it entered glass

then

we were able to measure the speed of light in glass and

OOPS

light is slower in glass

so out goes the corpuscular theory

it was replaced by the wave theory of light

which worked fine until we ran into the photo-electric effect

this effect led to the conclusion that light came in discrete packets - photons

so out goes the wave theory

but

hey, packets of energy sound a little bit like particles

so we sort of blended the ideas calling it the 'wave/particle duality of light'

not terribly satisfactory as theories go

the best conclusion we can draw here is that neither the wave nor the particle 'model' applies

and that we really have no everyday model to use at the quantum level

still we have a theory of light which allows us to predict the behavior of light very reliably

it's a work in progress

a common mistake is to mix science and faith

science can only deal with the perceptible - stuff like matter and energy

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is beyond the purview of science

faith is not subject to 'proof' otherwise there would be no reason for belief

take the origin of the universe

science can address the what and how but not the who and why

it's sort of like a painting versus a photograph

both can give a useful picture

but neither shows the entire picture

in other words - there is a whole lot more for us to 'know'

Certainly.

Newtonian gravitation has been proven to be incorrect by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Even though Newton's law of universal gravitation (F=G*m1*m2/r^2) works in many instances, there are situatons for which it does not work. General relativity does work in those situations, and explains such things as gravitational lensing (light bends as it passes a massive star), and the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

Yes but the likelihood of being proven false in some cases are EXTREMELY low.

Yes, because they are only theories

The big band theory? Religion can prove it wrong, this is if you have a religion. Or you could just say it was a random event, this is if you believe there is such thing as random events (which i don't) on the other hand you could just make up our own theory on why we exist.