Wikipedia defines a scientific theory as
an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method
I'm curious about the history of the repeatedly tested and corroborated portion of this definition. This is also reflected in the popular claim that a "hypothesis becomes a theory if tested and proven".
This notion does not appear to come from philosophical circles - I have not found any discussion of e.g. what level of evidence is required for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory. Obviously, there is general consensus that supporting evidence is a requirement for something to be a "good" or "correct" scientific theory; but they also are more than happy to discuss "wrong" scientific theories - which is an oxymoron if a theory is definitionally well-supported.
The "well-supported" criterion dates back to at least the late 90s. In every early source I've found, it's enmeshed with the debate with debates about creationism vs. evolution. In particular - it seems to be be almost exclusively invoked to either combat or preempt claims that evolution is "just a theory".
Based on not finding any earlier references, I suspect that this particular line of discourse (which AFAICT began several decades earlier) is in fact the origin of the criterion that a scientific theory must be well-substantiated by definition.
However, I've found no acknowledgement that this change occurred, or even a historical overview comparing the relative prevalences of said definitions. Are there any such lineages, or discussions of the value of various definitions of "scientific theory" dating to that time? Alternatively are there references to scientific well-supportedness as a necessary criterion for scientific theories pre-dating (or at least existing independently of) the creationism/intelligent design debates?