Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[Angrboda]

What are the differences between natural theology arguments and pseudoscience? The arguments are just that: inductive premises usually set in a deductive syllogism. Some of the premises are backed by science, some are backed by reasoning, and some are backed by experiences. Pseudoscience are claims that have actual scientific reasons not to believe them. So it would seem that your "similarities" are that neither natural theology nor pseudoscience are purely scientific--which is correct but of little consequence because as we know, verificationism is all but dead.

Since the question was about the qualitative aspects of natural theology arguments as explanations and their similarity and substance on that axis, or lack thereof, you've talked around the question without actually engaging it.