No, there are only one definition of hypothesis that matters in science, and it is the science definition that applied to the requirements of Scientific Method, and not the ignorant one that you provided.
Before anyone can start the formulation of the hypothesis, that must already have some initial or preliminary observations of the natural & physical phenomena.
With those observations, it should provide some information (data) about the phenomena, that the person can study, evaluate and analyze phenomena. Only then can a person have information to understand the phenomena and begin to write proposed models of the phenomena, as to what it is, and how does it work, hence the model should include -
(A) the (proposed) explanations & the (proposed) logic (logical model, like mathematical equations),
(B) the (proposed) predictions,
(C) and more importantly, include proposed methodology to TEST A & B.
What C means is to “test” the hypothesis. And the only to objectively “test” it, is to either find evidence or to set up experiments, that will either -
- “refute” the hypothesis, because the model is “improbable”,
- or, “verify” the hypothesis because the model is “probable”.
You cannot simply make up some claims in the hypothesis. Like I said at the start, you have to begin with preliminary observations, which should provide some data to proceed to understand the natural phenomena.
To give you a real life example.
Charles Darwin didn’t simply invent some nonexistent stories. It all began with studies of geology and studies of organisms of both plants and animals during his voyage upon HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836, mainly in South America and the Galapagos, and to less extent the Pacific islands, Australia and South Africa.
His travel journals and notes and samples that he brought back to England, were parts of his research that he would later attempt to explain in On Origin Of Species (1859) and later works. He continued to research before On Origin publication, as well as consulting with other geologists, zoologists and botanists.
And what most creationists tends to forget, Darwin wasn’t the only one working on the hypothesis of Evolution through Natural Selection.
Alfred Russel Wallace was writing a similar hypothesis, and he too, like Darwin, did some fieldworks at the Amazon rainforest and at the Malay Archipelago.
Both naturalists had some things to research on - the preliminary observations - before they began writing their respective works on Natural Selection.
Hypothesis is a proposed set of explanations that needed to be both testable (Falsifiability) and tested (more observations, eg evidence, experiments, which would fulfill the requirements of Scientific Method).
When you say “hypothesis are claims”, it only revealed you have no idea what a hypothesis is.
Creationists make up claims all the time, but their claims don’t qualify as being a hypothesis, because a hypothesis needs explanations that are “falsifiable”, meaning the hypothesis must “testable”.
And creationism isn’t “falsifiable”, because you cannot test the supernatural, like God, angels, creation of Adam, the nonexistent “global” Flood, miracles, resurrection, etc. The failure to test any of these, only demonstrate the concepts of creationism are merely claims.