Please define "science," "pseudo-science," and "pop-science."
Thank you.
Science is a process of searching for fundamental and universal principles that govern causes and effects in the universe. The process itself is a method of building, testing, and connecting falsifiable models to describe, explain and predict a shared reality. The method includes hypothesis, repeatable experiments and observations, and new hypothesis. The prime criterion in determining the usefulness of a model is the ease with which the model correctly makes predictions or explains phenomena in the shared reality.
From: A Brief Definition of Science
Using the above we could compare the science of genetics with the pseudo-science of evolution. Mendel showed by thorough experimentation that each individual gets one half of his genetic information from the father and half from the mother. This was in contradiction to the general belief (and Darwin's belief) that the traits of an individual were a "blend" of the traits of the parents. His theory was after his rigorous testing, tested further by numerous scientists and found to be correct. It further led to the discovery (when we finally were able to observe the nucleus of cells) of what we now call genes. In fact it predicted the presence of genes and alleles of genes in our bodies. As such, it has become the basis of the science of biology.
Evolution does not even have a generally accepted hypothesis. What we term "evolution" is a rag-tag assemblage of competing and contradicting theories such as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism without environmental influences), Punk-Eek (Darwinism without gradualism), Genetic Drift (Darwinism without selective mutations) and perhaps many more of which I am not aware. Even the "proofs" of these contradictory theories are themselves contradictory. For example paleontology relies chiefly on homology to determine what species descended from another. However, when it is clearly shown that a certain species could in no way have descended from the other, they say this is due to "convergence". Therefore, their assumptions have no predictability and are therefore not scientific.
As to pop-science let me give you a quote:
It was the importance of this distinction which led me to designate this form of selection as Sexual Selection. So again, if the chief service rendered to the male by his prehensile organs is to prevent the escape of the female before the arrival of other males, or when assaulted by them, these organs will have been perfected through sexual selection, that is by the advantage acquired by certain individuals over their rivals. But in most cases of this kind it is impossible to distinguish between the effects of natural and sexual selection. Whole chapters could be filled with details on the differences between the sexes in their sensory, locomotive, and prehensile organs. As, however, these structures are not more interesting than others adapted for the ordinary purposes of life I shall pass them over almost entirely, giving only a few instances under each class.
From: Darwin, "Descent of Man", Chapter 8.
As you can see in the above, it claims to be saying something, but it is saying nothing at all. It gives the reader the "feeling" he has learned something when nothing has really been explained or proven.