I am very surprised that you haven't come across this before. It's standard science. The history of our earth reveals life emerged in increasing stages of complexity. This was recognized and accepted by many Christians as early as the nineteenth century, so it's not exactly new. It is also clear that some of the earliest life forms were single celled organisms. Behold, the cyanobacteria. We have fossils of them dating to over 2 billion years ago. As for naming scientists on the record about the strength of this argument, I don't think I have enough time to write all the thousands of names that would require. This has been well established for decades. You can read more here (start from page 68 to save time). You can also read this timeline, this timeline, this timeline, or this timeline.
Ok so how do you "properly divide the Scriptures" in order to conclude that the description of the sun and moon in the Bible isn't actually an accurate description of how they move in reality, and that Cardinal Bellarmine was totally wrong despite centuries of church tradition and the "plain reading" of Scripture?
No it doesn't. The first modern scientific synthesis of evolution was written years before Darwin, by an English clergyman, Robert Chambers, in a book called "Vestiges of the History of the Natural Creation" (1844). He believed it gave God greater glory.
To a reasonable mind the Divine attributes must appear, not diminished or reduced in some way, by supposing a creation by law, but infinitely exalted.
It is the narrowest of all views of the Deity, and characteristic of a humble class of intellects, to suppose him acting constantly in particular ways for particular occasions. It, for one thing, greatly detracts from his foresight, the most undeniable of all the attributes of Omnipotence. It lowers him towards the level of our own humble intellects.
Much more worthy of him it surely is, to suppose that all things have been commissioned by him from the first, though neither is he absent from a particle of the current of natural affairs in one sense, seeing that the whole system is continually supported by his providence.
As for your three choices:
There are serious problems with them.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean but it sounds nothing like evolution.
That's like saying that if you believe God performs miracles, it makes natural comprehension through science impossible.
In other words this is the one you like the best for personal reasons, but nothing to do with the Bible or science.