@MrMarc The term "Theory of Everything" (TOE) does not imply >everything< can be explained >in detail<. It refers to the idea that one has the fundamental theory that explains our Universe without ad-hoc asumptions or the need to plug in measured values then >in principle< one could derive everything else. The Standard Model is not it, as it has a number of parameters that need to be defined outside of the SM. However, >in principle< is a significant qualifier, as phenomena like chaos make predictions inherently next-to-impossible even if we had literally unlimited computational resources.
E.g. although the mechanics is well known an attempt to calculate exactly and in detail the swirling of the water around the drain as your bathtub empties itself is pretty much hopeless (I am fairly sure though that you can calculate and predict that there will be a rotational motion, however, just not the details). The timing of your and my pit stops would be---in relation to a TOE---equivalent to such detail, actually much, much, much more removed from the theory than the movement of individual molecules in the swirling water from, say some kind of hydro-dynamic calculation.
We do, however, have an idea what the term "everything" encompasses. It is based on the assumption that everything builds on the particle world by means of their interactions, decays, reactions with each other and so on. So the claim of a TOE is not quite as hubrid as it sounds (it is arguably a little hubrid, though). Earlier attempts in this direction were e.g. the "Weltformel" (world formula) by Heisenberg et al. The difference is that nowadays the connection between the physics of the smallest known particles (leptons and quarks) and radiation and the largest structures in the universe (e.g. black holes & the whole Big-Bang cosmology) is known at least to some degree, which was much less the case in Heisenberg's days. Needless to say, anything outside of this picture would not be covered by "everything", but arguably one of the successes of modern elementary physics is that in fact it appears most phenomena >are< consistent with this picture and do not need assumptions of other effects.
I would certainly agree with your doubt that we are anywhere close to an actual TOE. I do not know enough to have an opinion as to the possibility of ever developing one, however. Whatever it would be, it would presumably be highly abstract and be many layers above the world directly accessible to our senses.