This is a philosophical/theological question primarily, on the nature of creation, and the nature of Nature… Creation is the direct act of God in bringing something new into the world that would not otherwise be there. The idea in the mind of God becomes something not already in the world - a new form, or a new nature.
Those “natures” have been given powers by virtue of their creation - for example, the power of generating their own kind, in the realm of living things. But those powers to change are downstream of creation, being its outworking. So, analogously, making an electric car is a manufacturing act, but allowing it to run is not.
But it is doubtful whether God gives these created nature the power to create new natures themselves, or nature itself would be a Creator. Theologically that will not fly because in the context of creation God insists it is his sole work, and says “I will not give my glory to another” (Isa 42:5-9). Philosophically it is because if “natures” (collectively “Nature”) are what God creates, it is hard to see how they can themselves be involved in creating what was not already part of their forms.
So is it is not about God avoiding natural means, but rather that natural means are the end product of creation.
And so George and Jon as human animals are products of natural generation, and that is not creation. But they are also unique spiritual individuals arising from the specific purpose of God (as the Isaiah passage says, “Who gives breath to the people on earth, and spirit to those who walk in it.”) That helps explain the Catholic doctrine of the special creation of each human soul. But despite the efforts of the gender warriors, nothing in our created nature gives us a capacity to become what we are not.
Now, in the matter of evolution, the question becomes whether God has in fact, given living things the capacity to change their natures through the natures of mutations, natural selection, etc. If he has, then it is not creation, but nature, acting by natural means. One then has to ask where the novelty existed in nature - we know, for example, that an oak is already in an acorn because of its genome, etc (which it got from another oak). But where is the potential whale in an arterodactyl?
It’s worth noting, at this point, that all theories of evolution since Darwin have insisted that there is no such potential to “unfold” in evolution - new forms are brought together from “out there” by blind search, and fixed by natural selection. To invoke natural teleology, then, is a radically different kind of theory from current science (though not without merit scientifically).
If God hasn’t endowed nature with such inherent powers, then he works in evolution by some act of creation within nature, such as bringing about some novel chemical change in a genome - in which case his creative power is acting upon nature, not by means of nature.