Deeper view of evolution and intelligent design

To continue the line of thought started here: Another remarkable thing about the cdk007's computational experiment was his setup of components and heredity rules. As he (she?) says himself, you need "living" component to have an evolution. It's not quite clear what "living" means in the context, so I get to interpret it my way: capable of forming useful combinations spontaneously. The very nature of the elements has to be designed (there is that word again) to allow for combinations that are useful in certain circumstances. For example, we could add glass spheres containing sand to the set of elements, and then we'll have an evolutionary path to sand clocks. Without such spheres, our time-measuring creatures can't survive in a harsh acid environment, for example.

Which brings me to my less defensible and more important point. When you think about an infinitely intelligent being as your "intelligent designer", you have to conclude that for it there is no difference whether to think one step ahead and just create organisms, or think a huge number of steps ahead and create the elements that organisms will be made of, or think an almost infinite number of steps ahead and create the physical constants that make all the elements possible, or, ultimately, think the truly infinite number of steps ahead and create an infinite number of layers in the phisical world, all of them discoverable by science, all of them explaining one another, and all of them set up just so for intelligent life to emerge.

I admit this is rather fanciful, but without this idea, what you have is essentially random world. And how do you explain the amazing coincidence that the biological object developed for not falling out of trees was usable, unaltered in its biological essence, to comprehend the mysteries of the smallest and largest things in the Universe? What gives us the confidence that our scientific problems are all solvable and worth struggling with?