It is an interesting one. On several occasions when someone has posted a "science" based answer (on behalf of religion), I have asked for citation of the science for the claim (in the same way that a Biblical claim is generally met with a Biblical citation, and it is common to ask for a Biblical basis for an answer). Every time I have done so, I have been met with hostility and even flagged. My intention here is not to deny people the use of a science answer, but rather to improve their answer by allowing the reader to make a discerning to the best of their ability and the ability to investigate further (which is surely fine if there is evidence?).
On other times, answers have been along the lines of "which is well supported because [some scientist] has said so", ignoring the fact that the claim has been largely rejected and refuted by the scientific community, or (in many cases) has been flatly disproven - i.e. it is not a strong scientific basis.
I honestly encourage the inclusion of modern data, but in an honest way - that acknowledged that it is in debate. Likewise, presenting such as a personal reasoning would be fine - but flatly presenting it as "fact" (in the same way that a scripture section might be quoted as a literal thing - i.e. "This is what is written") is hugely misleading and can only be intended to give a false representation.
I don't have an easy answer, but I would love to see the believer parts of the community pressing these answers for more than just "there is good evidence". When asked by a non-believer it seems to be interpreted as challenging their faith or combatitive, which is honestly not my intent. However, any science-based "evidence" should be able to stand up to mild scrutiny, otherwise it simply isn't a science-based answer (but rather: just sensationalism). Strictly speaking it should stand up to intense scrutiny - but as per the question: we are not professional scientists.