Is it advisable to use non-scientific method to teach science courses? This question is motivated after reading a pop-science book from a famous researcher about physics and some implications. I find the content very amusing but I was utterly frustrated at the lack of any scientific value.

In particular, the book is about some plausible explanations about some observed fact. The author tells a story as follows: 

Event A *could* occur under some wild assumptions. If A occurs and a sequence of events B occur, then an event C has non-zero possibility to occur. So, A is potentially responsible for C.

I.e., if something could happen, let's write a book about it (about A => C) without absolutely any supporting scientific evidence for A or B. It doesn't matter if C could occur for a gazillion other non-related and more plausible issues. 

Such exposition reminds me the famous argument that a rocket launch could (in principle) alter the rotation of the earth and a change on its rotation could alter the climate. So, if we observe a change in the climate together with any change in the rotation, we should blame NASA.

I wonder why, otherwise prominent, scientists follow such populist and counter-scientific way of exposition. Could this qualify as pseudo-science?

My question related to academic standards and ethics, motivated by the above incident, is the following:


Do the ends (of drawing more people into science) justify the means (doing so by an exaggerated non-scientific way)? This is not limited to a single pop-sci book.
Can this be applied to standard university level pedagogy? Is it advisable to teach any scientific topic using a non-scientific way with the hope that more students find it appealing? 
Are there specific examples of such successful pedagogical method? 
Is this a contradiction? 


Note: Initially, this post created some controversy, and subsequently was voted for closing, for being very opinion-made. I tried to adapt the text and the questions to reflect more objectified answers related to ways of teaching in academic environment. In other words if it is OK to teach the public about scientific matters in a non-scientific way, could we do the same in class? Do you have any particular examples, successful or not, in mind?
"What if..." Is the bread and butter of science and mathematics. Making outrageous guesses and then checking them is part of the toolkit for professional thinkers. 

In your examples, you say that the author takes the stance that one event only potentially explains another, which seems fine from a scientific point of view.

As others have said, when you popularize you often intentionally leave out some subtlety. This is really a function of your intended audience. I leave out some subtlety when I teach intro calculus.

As to whether or not the author you reference does this badly or irresponsibly, I can't form an opinion without reading what they wrote.