The answer, as Roy said, is No.
If we take “evolution” at its most general simply to mean “the transformation of objects of type A, over time, into objects of type B, by some natural process” then Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams depicting the stellar Main Sequence (for instance) require no theology. The hypothesized transformation of a lineage of single-celled eukaryotes into colonial and then true multicellular organisms should also require no God-talk.
Nonetheless, it is a historical fact about evolutionary theory (biological) on Earth that it emerged from a theological cradle in the 19th century and still carries its cradle garments with it, when the theory is being expounded to students and the public at large. Here’s a thought experiment to make the point plain.
Imagine organizing a intra-galactic science conference with friendly alien scientists from Proxima Centauri. The schedule calls for their scientists, and ours, to compare knowledge bases, starting with physics, then proceeding to chemistry, biochemistry, cell and organismal biology, and so on. During the first few days, as physics and chemistry are compared, we and the aliens are fully on the same page (periodic table the same, for instance).
But when organismal biology arrives, Richard Dawkins stands up and proclaims that we on Earth know that vertebrates evolved because no designer worth his salt would have constructed the backwards-oriented photoreceptors of vertebrates. Jerry Coyne adds the recurrent laryngeal nerve to the mix, with John Avise spending all his time on the illogic (poor design) of genome organization.
The aliens listen politely for a while, then raise their dozens of hands.
“Why all this talk about what God would have done?” they ask. “That is NOT how we understand biology AT ALL.”
The God-talk is there, obviously, because evolution’s main competitor in 1859, when the modern theory was born, was some form of creationism. Thus what Darwin called his “one long argument” in the Origin was an argument against special creation. And those cradle garments, as I’m calling them, still cling to the theory.
So, why, in 2021, is the theology (or its adjuncts, such as “perfection” and “imperfection,” conditioned on the assumed actions of an optimizing designer) still there? See, for instance, this paper:
This talk by Greg Radick (U of Leeds) is also of interest: