I think the distinction is that a supernatural created biology could look like anything. Therefore you cannot disprove such an explaination. Therefore you can't test it. And therefore it is not science. Also noone is suprised or impressed that the explaination is still around.
However the theory of evolution requires, by way of it's very mechanisms, that biology look a certain way. The theory of evolution only remains standing and is thought highly of, because the biological world does look that certain way that evolution requires.
Well, a naturally-created biology could look like anything too, so you couldn't disprove such an explanation either and couldn't test it therefore it is not science.
What requirement do you think the ToE places on biology?
The ToE only remains standing because a naturalistic explanation is required 'a priori' in order to be 'scientific'. That was the point.
If you are looking at a supernaturally-created universe and life, to limit your explanations to 'naturalistic-only' guarantees that you will get the wrong answer.
That's what evolution is... the wrong answer.