I would agree that there is no coherent theology behind those two statements about God, as @T_aquaticus expressed them. God does what God wants to do, and (IMO) God it’s not appropriate for mere creatures such as ourselves to say that God can’t create a world that evolves and even has the created capacities to produce life from non-living things without “direct” or “immediate” or “special” or “extraordinary” or “miraculous” (these are some of the adjectives that are typically used in the Christian theological tradition) action. Likewise, it’s inappropriate for us to say that God “has to act directly” to make up for “laws” that are “lacking,” from our perspective.
In reference to the origin of life, I personally think it’s likely that God did act “outside” of created capacities, but I do not know and we aren’t likely to settle that one here. The point is, I am open to God doing things in that way, anywhere in the history of the world, including in natural history. Perhaps many of us would agree that we have no idea how that could have happened “naturally,” but of course that conclusion is (like all scientific conclusions) contingent on current knowledge, and 1000 years from now things might look very different.
If it should be the case that “nature” with its “laws” does lack the ability to produce complex life forms “on its own,” then indeed it would be coherent (and potentially true) to claim that “God did a miracle.” Of course, it’s fair to ask whether we can ever be certain that nature can’t do that, but (IMO) neither science nor theology deals with certainties.
Incidentally, my problem with both of those putative claims about God is not related to any concerns about God “withholding gifts” from the creation, as Howard Van Till famously used to argue, when he was voicing objections to ID against Phil Johnson and others. IMO, Howard was essentially taking Leibniz’ side against Newton, in the famous “Leibiz-Clarke (Newton) debate.” My own sympathies have always been with Clarke (who wrote on behalf of Newton) in that one. Leibniz insisted that the world is “God’s watch,” and that it’s a far better notion of the Creator to believe that God would design a more perfect watch that doesn’t need tinkering. Clarke/Newton explicitly rejected the clock/watch metaphor in this context–contrary to the widespread cultural myth that Newton “invented” the “clockwork universe.” Instead, they believed it was much more appropriate to divine governance of the universe that God could make the world as God saw fit, including a world in which God might continue to act specially from time to time to achieve God’s purposes. IMO, that’s a fully coherent theology, and better than that of Leibniz.
Another way to say this: Leibniz was basically expressing a similar theological attitude to that expressed by Einstein’s famous quip, “God doesn’t play dice.” Clarke/Newton was basically expressing the attitude Bohr voiced, when he told Einstein, “Stop telling God what to do.”
Those interested in more background for my views can contact me privately (tdavis AT messiah DOT edu) and ask for my paper, “Newton’s Rejection of the ‘Newtonian Worldview’.”