Not necessarily. I would think that any tendency to make that claim arises from the frustration with Darwinists who make the opposite claim, namely that evolution precludes the possibility of a designer, which it in no way does. For every Creationist who claims that the everything was created magically without resort to a knowable process you have an equal number of Darwinists who are uncomfortable or even stridently against the concept that a Designer is involved or even needed. Some Creationists feel that evolution seems to lessen the role of a designer. I don't personally think it does. Because I use screwdrivers and hammers and glue and nails in assembling a house doesn't take away from my claim that I built the house. And if a quadriplegic, incapable of wielding those same tools, observes me using those tools to build my house, it doesn't make him any more capable of utilizing the tools and building my own house. If evolution does turn out to represent a mechanism used in achieving the diversity of species found on earth, knowing that mechanism does not bring me any closer to gaining the ability of designing and implementing such a system myself to create the same result. Knowledge doesn't always confer capability. Conversely, evolution in no way requires nor denies the existence of a designer. Those evolutionists who claim that it does are as unjustified as those creationists who claim the opposite.
What bothers me about the ND's is their refusal to utter the words intelligent design in the face of repeatable and observable science, namely bioengineering and it's ability to direct changes in alleles.
You say "And if a quadriplegic, incapable of wielding those same tools, observes me using those tools to build my house, it doesn't make him any more capable of utilizing the tools and building my own house." -- well if that quadriplegic was an architect or general contractor and directed a crew to build a house that quad could also honestly claim to have built the house.