Hossenfelder, one of our fan faves, tries her hand at the difference:
Let us look at some other popular example, Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is a good scientific theory because it “connects the dots” basically by telling you how certain organisms evolved from each other. I think that in principle it should be possible to quantify this fit to data, but arguably no one has done that. Creationism, on the other hand, simply posits that Earth was created with everything in place. That means Creationism puts in as much information as you get out of it. It therefore does not explain anything. This does not mean it’s wrong. But it means it is unscientific.
Another way to tell pseudoscience from science is that a lot of pseudoscientists like to brag with making predictions. But just because you have a model that makes predictions does not mean it’s scientific. And the opposite is also true, just because a model does not make predictions does not mean it is not scientific.Sabine Hossenfelder, “How to tell science from pseudoscience” at BackRe(Action)
Why do people like Hossenfelder feel they need to honor Darwinism’s rotting carcass?
A model that makes testable predictions is not scientific?
Hossenfelder is not doing herself a favor here. The theory is held in place by court judgments and tenure, not by science findings.
There are real ideas in biology, as well as in physics. Find them.