Let’s get our terms straight, here.
A scientific theory is a conceptual framework that not only describes and unifies the existing body of knowledge, but provides a basis on which to formulate new, testable hypotheses. Through an iterative process, theories are refined and become more accurate reflections of the underlying reality. Thus, the theory of evolution is a robust conceptual framework for understanding the interrelationships between living organisms and is an integral component of any biological study.
A hypothesis is a logical supposition of a potential consequence of the application of known facts. A good hypothesis is testable; a well-designed experiment will differentiate between the hypothesis and the null hypothesis—in other words, it predicts the result if the hypothesis is true vs. if it is not true. Anthropogenic “global warming” is a hypothesis because it took a single physical fact (that carbon dioxide has a very wide fluorescence band in the infrared portion of the spectrum) and hypothesized that this property controls the amount of solar energy retained at the surface of the earth. This hypothesis was weak at the outset because it did not account for all of the known facts about fluorescence, heat transfer, the role of carbon in the biosphere, etc., and it has almost no predictive value that would enable researchers to actually test it. It is useful from a certain political point of view (because it can be used to limit freedom) but is not a good scientific hypothesis.
Anyway, teaching critical thought is a vital component of education that the schools have abdicated utterly.
OK: (example) global warming (or evolution) is taught as a proven theory instead of as an unverified hypothesis.
Better? this is what I was trying to say - thanks for clarifying.