It is based on evidence. Scientific preaching is called a hypothetical assertion. Two theoretical physicists can argue quantum energy levels but it only takes one experimentalist to destroy them both. Repeatable experiments and observation always win over theory.
And it should not be taught as true until it is known to be true.
That is probably a good trait in science. Everything should always be on the chopping block with no viable alternatives left out.
What alternative do you have? Unless one can come with a better alternative the most likely is your best answer. Otherwise you just sit there and look at a big ball of hot plasma and wonder where it came from.
An example I would give is with regard to the origin of the Universe itself.
Some would argue that it came from nothing (quantum fluctuations in nothing produced space, time, and energy/matter).
Others would argue that there is a multiverse that ultimately resulted in the formation of our universe. And of course, there is your position of Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism that says that a being outside of the laws of the universe made the universe from this being's thoughts a few thousand years ago. Objective science doesn't look at these and pick the one that sounds the best or is the most likely. Objective science eliminates all the wrong answers (theory) and then shows that the answer that is left is objectively true (law). Since Einstein, scientists have moved away from this kind of objective science and have decided that they can't know anything as objectively true, which is absurd. But because they have this mentality, they stop at what seems like the most likely explanation to them (which is inherently biased and unscientific since most likely isn't the same as knowing objectively).
It becomes evidence when you can make predictions from your simulated model which can then be tested or observed. An example might be the Edington limit for the theoretical mass of a star.
Yes, observation and testing of the actual phenomenon. Which is what I'm asking about in regard to the formation of stars. Great, your computer models have given you a picture of your hypothesis. Now, where is the evidence that your nebula ever collapsed? Where is your evidence that what was not a star became a star? We have observed for such a short period of time relative to the alleged time this process takes it's like taking a photograph or a single frame of a movie we've not ever seen before and trying to say what happened in the movie before that frame. I'm not interested in hypotheses. I want to know what we know in the objective sense.
Ok, I don't see anyone giving back any research grants.
But you do see people who don't know in the objective sense teaching things they
prefer to be true, and for which they have some pretty computer models spanning billions of years in a few minutes or seconds as if it is objectively true.
If you have to ask then it might not apply to you. I am an ID proponent who is labeled as a creationist and a YEC. Even though the term Yec does not apply in this case.
My background is in Physics. I don't let the nonsense from any non-objectively true belief affect my quest for objective knowledge of the universe whether it be biological evolution, religious tradition, political and economic pressure, and so on. I empathize greatly with men like Nikola Tesla. I would rather die penniless having explored the depths of the mysteries of the universe and come to know what I can know than to live in luxury and ignorance.
Undoubtedly my quest for objective knowledge of the universe will be laughed at by modern scientists, but I'm not seeking their praise or acceptance either. I would rather be derided, scorned, and hated and know truth alone than to be loved as an ignorant fool among ignorant fools.