Sure, but all you are describing is how things happened which we can find objective evidence for. What you describe looks to me subjectively like something that was extremely well thought out ahead of time.
If you wish to pursue that line of reasoning it would be appropriate to provide some kind of evidence for this critter that caused things to be "well thought out."
And see below:
I agree that subjectively you can also make the case that we are the beneficiaries of very fortuitous non-intelligent natural forces. We can look at the same evidence and subjectively come to different conclusions which goes back to the question in the OP.
Not all interpretations are of equal value. When you have a lot of evidence supporting one interpretation and minimal-to-no evidence supporting the other, it is incorrect to place them on equal footing. This is where "teach the controversy" (an attempt by creationists to gain some traction after ID was shot down) failed. The "controversy" was generated by creationists, not by scientists, and as such had no standing within science. But they knew that, they just wanted their creationism taught, and that was the next trick they tried.
So no, not all interpretations are of equal value. Some are more supported by empirical evidence than others. And some are supported only by subjective evidence (i.e., wishful thinking).
But then if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't have to grasp at the straws of subjective evidence, would you?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.