Yes to the last, as I’ve been arguing for years!
Let’s start from the many claims and assumptions in Scripture that God takes sole responsibility and glory for creation (which there’s not space here to document). The implication - indeed often the overt claim - in that is that creation is just what God intended, giving context to the Genesis conclusion “god saw that it was very good” (note I’m not suggesting good=perfect, but good=as intended).
The means by which God might achieve this are, in themselves, unimportant - though, for example, a Deistic clockmaker is for other reasons problematic). So let us suppose that, as per Kathryn Applegate, God were able to set up the laws and initial conditions so that creation emerged just as he planned by a process of evolution. In that case “God creates through evolution”, and “evolution” carries its original sense of an unfolding of what is inherent in nature, analogously to the growth of the plant from the seed.
(Note, as an aside, that this is not the only, or even best, scenario, but it would qualify as “creation through secondary causes”.)
On the other hand, if evolution is conceived, as it tends to be in science, as intrinsically open-ended (cf Gould’s concept of re-running the program with different results), then one has to have some concept either of it possessing an intrinsic will (evolution as a conscious agent “freely” choosing) or of Epicurean chance producing results controlled neither by nature or God. Both of those are problematic theologically, even before you ask why God would want to leave creation to chance, or to what could only be termed a Demiurge (in this case personified Nature, or Evolution, since actual sentient organisms don’t get any choice in how they evolve).
This would be “allowing evolution to create,” and unless it were directed by some additional care from God in the form of, say, special providence, it would inevitably be subject to the fallibility of all the material creation - as indeed Plato’s (and Gnosticism’s) original Demiurge made a hash of implementing God’s “perfect forms”.
We see such conclusions in the “poor design” argument, and specifically in Darrel Falk’s or Karl Giberson’s suggestion that pathogens and cruel cats couldn’t possibly be God’s work, or Francisco Ayala’ litany of design faults and immoral outcomes which it would be “blasphemy” to ascribe to the Creator. It goes right back to Darwin and his parasitic wasps, of course. But the inevitable conclusion is that there are two Creators, not one - with no very clear way of attributing anything to God except by arbitrarily dividing nature into “good” and “bad.”
The common way of squaring this circle is by “freedom” talk - that God didn’t plan to create specific outcomes, or indeed it would be obsessional, or tyrannical, or unimaginative, if he did. But it’s hard to see what sense such freedom talk makes if it actually means molecules are forced by stochastic events to produce poor outcomes which, in many cases, God would not even like and which, in the rest, are fortuitous and so worthy of no praise either to God OR Nature.
It’s Deistic in the simple sense that it intends for God to be transcendant rather than immanent - but has no way of avoiding the distant God either observing all the supposed “waste and suffering” in impotent distress, or not actually caring too much as long as he gets to see interesting stuff done by someone else. It’s more Gnostic, as I’ve said, in that the heavy lifting of creation is done by some kind of assistant-God, who is not super-reliable.
But the bottom line is that the Scriptures we claim as authoritative know nothing whatsoever of any of this - creation is God’s own good work, and indeed the work of Christ himself as Logos - which is not only worthy of our conscious thanksgiving and praise, but in some metaphorical way offers God such praise and thanksgiving itself, not for its creativity, but for its creation.
I don’t think there’s a shadow of uncertainty on this in the Bible - the alternative idea comes from prioritising something else over Scripture.