We begin to appreciate at the very least the rather unique cosmological configuration (weighted in favor of life) that exists here on earth - and in spite of acknowledging the very real possibility of other earth-like worlds, nevertheless recognizing that it is almost certainly only and exclusively here on earth where a ten fingered bipedal self aware, sentient observer can look up at certain times (with eyes shielded of course) and see their giant, single moon perfectly eclipse their sun. What does it mean, that's the question that comes to my mind, that and the idea of superintelligent design.
Just wanted to respond to this because you are asking the same questions that I would ask - which any sane, seminally aware person SHOULD be wondering. WHY?
Besides all these persuasive physical conditions that beg the question - how and why - there are also fare more basic questions and realities, very interesting ones posed by Martin Heidegger, for example, in his "Being and Time", which force upon us to think and reflect.
I'm just going to concentrate on some basic existential factoids.. Why is everything always composed of a dichotomy? Just look at nature. Natures basic dynamics supports a dog-eat-dog system, what Darwin called "natural selection". Within this system, the weakest members of a species with the least useful or favourable characteristics are discarded in order to advance the stronger members of the species - all for the sake of survival. Ok. If you subscribe to this belief, lets look at man (without coating him with our bias towards nature, as rationalist are won't to do). Unlike nature, man stands out. He is a sore thumb; his physical creations - buildings, roads, sidewalks, beaches, etc stick out as much as him being the only creature which walks erect on two feet. Unlike nature, which inhumanely divests itself of any weakness, man has this unique capacity to sympathize with the weakest members of his species (and all of creation). It's the opposite flux. Nature works one way, while man in his very constitution, his walking erect, his capacity for compassion, his power to create, his ability to fly beyond the confines of his organic environment (earth) goes in the other direction.
This, coupled with the information you provided, begs not just the question of an intelligent designer, but more pertinently, a theological significance to man's place vis-a-vis creation. He seems to be the positive element superimposed on the negative backdrop. The earth which hangs in an infinite void. All things can be broken down to some dualism: a positive and negative. In the fabric of physical creatures, man assumes the positive, creative, caring, aspect. When he is unaware of his glorious role as caretaker of the garden, he degenerates into a creature far worse than any animal. His power is immense, which, as Peter Parkers uncle wisely advises, suggests great responsibility. And what does responsibility presuppose? It presuppose an AWARENESS of the conditions one must RESPOND to. If man chooses to ignore his specialness, his uniqueness amongst beings, then its a sure bet that he and the world will never retire from the daily tortures that we've become so inured to.
What you mentioned is important. It's further evidence against an atheism that wants to shove all thought of an "intelligent creator" aside in order to grant themselves full moral leeway to 'act-as-they-please". If man begins acknowledging creation in terms of theology, that sets an uncomfortable precedent for many people.
On a purely political note, if things are 'positive and negative', I don't see why skeptics and atheists wouldn't also conform to the basic scheme of things. However, they're denying themselves a beautiful thing: knowledge of God, and the true joy of wrestling for a belief and faith in Him.