"The evolutionary explanation for origins, although impossible either to prove or to test scientifically, is nevertheless defended by its proponents on the basis that it is the only explanation which is naturalistic, not involving the 'supernatural' element of a divine Creator"

In this quote, Henry M. Morris presents a critical viewpoint on the theory of evolution, particularly highlighting the restrictions of evolutionary descriptions in resolving the origins of life. He argues that while evolutionary theory is a dominant explanation concerning the origins of life, it remains clinically unprovable and untestable. This criticism is rooted in the belief that empirical science relies on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. Because evolutionary processes occur over vast timescales and are not directly observable in real-time in their entirety, Morris competes that advancement runs outside the rigid borders of empirical testing.

Furthermore, Morris mentions that advancement is favored by its proponents mainly due to the fact that it uses a naturalistic framework. In the clinical context, naturalism describes the understanding of the universe through natural laws and forces, excluding supernatural elements. Evolutionary theory hence aligns completely with a naturalistic worldview due to the fact that it accounts for the variety of life without conjuring up a divine or supernatural entity, which is main to creationist descriptions.

Morris appears to see the exemption of the "supernatural component of a divine Creator" as a considerable restriction of evolutionary theory. From his point of view, the focus on naturalism is possibly viewed as a choice that is less about scientific rigor and more about philosophical preference. This reflects a more comprehensive argument in between naturalistic and theistic interpretations of life's origins, where science comes to grips with questions not only of empirical adequacy however also of philosophical implications.

In essence, Morris's statement highlights the stress in between different worldviews: one that adheres strictly to natural descriptions versus another that allows room for supernatural participation. He challenges the clinical neighborhood to acknowledge this prepositional bias in favor of naturalism and questions the completeness and exclusivity of development as a description for life's starts.