Contemporary Christian apologetics devotes massive attention to atheism, but ignores deism. In one respect, that makes sense. Historic deism is long gone. However, there's a version of deism that's fairly dominant in some intellectual circles, and that's deistic evolution. Much of what flies under the banner of theistic evolution is really deistic evolution. And many religious critics of intelligent design theory espouse deistic evolution. Even if they allow for divine intervention in human history, the disallow divine intervention in natural history. Moreover, I suspect some of them are just maintaining pious appearances.
There are basically two versions of deistic evolution:
i) Deterministic deistic evolution
This is planned evolution. A frontloaded process where the outcome is inevitable. It isn't necessarily that every detail is predetermined. It's more like general providence. But progress is built into the process. A means-ends relation.
ii) Indeterministic deistic evolution
This is unguided or undirected evolution. Like a stochastic, adaptive program that takes on a life of its own once the program is switched on.
In both versions you have a noninterventionist God who merely initiates the process. In the case of (i), God takes a personal interest in the ultimate outcome, although there may be multiple paths for arriving at that outcome. It's broadly teleological, but redundant.
In the case of (ii), God is indifferent to the outcome. It rejects human exceptionalism. Both versions are consistent with open theism, although (ii) leans more strongly in that direction.
iii) Deistic evolution raises questions about divine benevolence and rationality. Why would God create sentient beings if he had no concern for their welfare or destiny? Do individuals count?
In the case of (ii), God did not intend to create humans. He did not foresee their development. Yet once the process happens to produce in sentient beings, would he not take a subsequent interest in the result?
But perhaps, on this view, it's like a science experiment conducted by an alien. Our species is too insignificant to merit his concern. He's interested in the overall process more than any particular result. Humans are like disposable characters in a vast video game. It's the game, and not the fate of any specific character, that's the object of divine curiosity.
In the case of (i), God cares more about the end-result than how the process arrives at that solution. Rupert Sheldrake employs the metaphor of an attractor:
Dynamics is a branch of mathematical theory dealing with change, and a central concept in dynamics is that of the attractor. Instead of modelling what happens to a system by considering only the way it is pushed from behind, attractors in mathematical models provide an explanation in terms of a kind of pull from the future.
The principal metaphor is that of a basin of attraction, like a large basin into which small balls are thrown. It would be very complicated to work out the trajectory of each individual ball starting from its initial velocity and angle at which it hit the basin; but a simpler way of modelling the system is to treat the bottom of the basin as an attractor: balls thrown in from any angle and at any speed will end up at the bottom of the basin.
Simon Conway Morris toys with the same metaphor to model convergent evolution. Cf. The Runes of Evolution: How the Universe became Self-Aware.
This emphasis puts a premium on the desired outcome at the expense of individuals. After however many failed trials, the goal is eventually reached.
In natural theology, you first prove the existence of a Creator God. You then show that such a God would be likely to take a personal interest in the wellbeing of the sentient creatures he made. We'd expect him to be actively involved in human history. Reveal himself to humans. Act on their behalf.
An irony of deistic evolution is that it posits the existence of a powerful, rational Creator God. And as the either intended or unintended consequence of the process he put into motion, religious creatures arose. Creatures who believe in a Creator God. Creatures with detailed religious narratives about God's character and agency in human affairs. They believe in a Deity, and there is, in fact, a Deity. Yet what they believe about God bears little resemblance to what he is truly like. Their religious narratives don't correspond to world history. Not just Gen 1-2, but the entire story–from Genesis to Revelation–is a systematic mismatch for God's nature and behavior in deistic evolution. And the same holds true for other religious narratives.
Conversely, evidence for the religious narrative (e.g. argument from prophecy, argument from miracles, answered proper) will serve to undermine the deistic evolutionary narrative.