It was an analogy about comparison of sophistication, not about spontaneous construction.
Most people probably wouldn't call the first replicators 'life' (perhaps 'proto-life' would be preferable); nevertheless, the fact is that the more the various abiogenesis hypotheses are investigated, the more surprising and encouraging discoveries are made - e.g. self-assembly of RNA chains at clay surfaces, spontaneous appearance of basic metabolic cycles used by living cells, etc.; these were thought to be quite implausible due to being complex and energetically unfavourable - until suitable environments were discovered.
It's only logical that if God created all that is, then logically He created physics and chemistry that are amenable, favorable, supportive, even inducing, to life.
Nothing else would even seem plausible to me. Like, it would seem fantastical and hugely unlikely to me the idea that God would make our physics unsupportive of life. I suppose one could imagine that, but it's....more convoluted than I expect things to be. Without even already learning physics, I would expect if I had only the idea that God is the creator of all things, then even just merely from that I would guess then that it would be that God would make Nature (which is physics in action of course, and nothing else) pleasant/useful/supportive to life.
It's only what one might guess to start with, even without learning physics yet.
Even if a person were somehow magically limited to only knowing just Genesis chapter 1, and no other knowledge, already one would end up reading:
"...
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good....."
Since "good" doesn't mean something like 'incompatible' or 'unsupportive', but instead their exact opposites -- supportive -- then we can surmise even merely just from Genesis chapter 1, already, that Nature is "good".
Just from this, we could hypothesize abiogenesis as a real possibility, though of course such a hypothesis would not prove that God would not intervene (help things along at times). I think most believers think God made Nature (i.e. physics, even if they don't know it) to work well. So therefore also the hypothesis of abiogenesis fits fine to Genesis chapter 1 read symbolically, as if it were a vision (this often means using symbolic representations), which it has the wording style of, like a vision with narration perhaps. God creating by design, no less.
The point of all of this is simply there isn't even a pause to understand for many the idea that God used evolution. It's so natural seeming. Fits the text so well, without any stretch.