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.
A naturally-created biology is constrained by the natural laws in our universe so cannot look like anything. We can test any natural explaination against observed natural laws.
A supernatural-created biology on the otherhand is not constrained by natural laws, and therefore cannot be tested. It could literally look like anything and not be a contradiction.
What requirement do you think the ToE places on biology?
The two simplest are that organisms can self-replicate and that replication is not perfect. These needn't be true under supernatural created biology but are critical for the ToE.
The ToE only remains standing because a naturalistic explanation is required 'a priori' in order to be 'scientific'. That was the point.
But there is a methological reason why that is so. It is because supernatuaral explainations cannot be tested and so their validity can neither be strengthed or weakened. Allowing them to be entertained as part of science would therefore waste time with no benefit.
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.
And entertaining supernatural explaiantions as well will only mean you never reach an answer.
In this case you would only get the right answer if you assumed the supernatural explaination.