First off you have to ask yourself this: Why are you asking this question? Something I find extraordinarily common, especially with WWI, ESPECIALLY with WWI, are people who contend academic consensus because it's academic consensus; usually this is born out of some inherent contrarianism or something to that effect. I don't know what your motivations are and I may be blowing smoke here so ignore this paragraph if I am. However, to me, why someone asks a question like this is equally important to the answer if not more.

Now, to handle something else right off the bat; let's start with the end:

If supporting the view that all nations were essentially equally responsible, and the blame of Germany is simply a case of history being written by the victors, was France more or less responsible than any other nation?

The idea of "equal responsibility" has been thoroughly debunked and discarded by every serious historian. I like the comparison to intentionalism vs functionalism for the holocaust -- it was a big debate a long time ago and people for some reason still cling onto 'the debate' but academically it is long since decided. There is no more debate. The view that all nations were equally or even close to being equally responsible no longer holds any weight and hasn't from around the 1960's.

It comes off as though France was subject to an unprovoked, aggressive assault from Germany, and fought only to defend itself. To what degree is this interpretation supported by evidence?

Pretty much all of it by this point; though you use some choice wording. I would rephrase it to say something more to the effect that Germany was the ones making the clear imperialist aims and it was Germany who was the one intervening everywhere. Even more frankly: Throughout the 15 years leading up to the war Germany was, largely, the one acting while the Entente was reacting.

Was France, in a Bismarkian way, encouraging the war because it hoped to gain from it? Essentially what I am asking is if France is as "innocent" as it seems to be in the view which contends Germany to be the true aggressor of the war.

Not in the slightest whatsoever.

Let's play a thought exercise and roll through the major events leading up to the war:

• Was it France who rapidly expanded its navy to attempt to seize naval hegemony from Britain and contest the North Sea / Baltic Sea and by doing so hope to intimidate/bully Britain, through a convoluted sense of common ancestry, into an alliance? No, that was Germany.

• Would you consider France and Britain solving their colonial issues in North Africa via treaty (France recognizing Egypt as under British rule and Britain recognizing Morocco + Algiers under French rule) as in any way whatsoever Germany's business? I wouldn't because Germany had absolutely no land or financial stake in North Africa -- it was a strictly Anglo-French issue. Then why did Germany intervene? Why did the Kaiser go to Tangiers and give a speech calling for Moroccan independence if not to undermine the French and try to illegitimize the treaty? Why did Germany, a state with absolutely no business in this crap, completely unprovoked call for a convention to determine the fate of French territory? This would drive Britain and France closer together in fear of Germany's clear meddling in their affairs; could you in any meaningful way blame France for that?

• What about the 1911 Moroccan Crisis? France would, in the territory of Morocco confirmed to be under her command by the very conference Germany called in attempt to undermine France 5 years prior, send some troops to quell some riots. Now, France was technically breaching the treaty by not removing her troops immediately but what does Germany do? Do they act diplomatically and take France to face the rest of Europe for her actions? No, Germany sends fucking warships to intervene and would basically bully France into ceding Kamerun and other African territories. This would scare the living crap out of Britain (who held naval hegemony) and obviously pissed France off and thus the bond between the two states would be complete.

While you could make some far stretched arguments it was partially France's fault for keeping her troops in Morocco I tend to place 90%+ of the blame on the one which sent warships to interfere with a sovereign nation's own legal territory. Breaching sovereignty tends to weigh higher up on the 'aggression' scale than mistreating your own colonial holding.

TL;DR:

In 25 years, from 1889 to 1914, just about every single action Germany took would push the world closer to war. Throughout these years it would be Germany's actions, not France's or Britain's or Russia's, but Germany's clear acts of expansionism and interventionism through Weltpolitik which drove the Entente together. Her actions had created clear boundaries of power in Europe in the formation of two major power blocs -- the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. When you create two power blocs like that where one is created for the sole purpose of aggressive expansion (Germany colonially and A-H with respect to Serbia and the rest of the Balkans) and the other with the sole purpose of containing the other / mutual defense against the other war is nearly inevitable and only requires a spark to ignite it all.

That is why Germany is held as the prime 'aggressor' of the war. They really only acted 'aggressively' in any militaristic sense once, in 1911. What they did do however was be the sole actor responsible for the creation of the defensive power bloc that was the Entente Cordiale and eventually the Triple Entente. Once these power blocs were set in place post-1911 all it would take would be one more opportunistic land grab from, say, Austria-Hungary and a blank cheque from Germany to pursue that land grab to send the world into war.

If you want a great book on every nations 'leadup' to the war I'd suggest Hew Strachans The First World War: Volume 1: To Arms.