You:
If it is your intention to imply that the two statements are mutually exclusive, I must disagree. For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.
What, no hugs? Ah well. My tagline points out (too briefly) that some ID advocates use the remarkable congeniality of the universe as evidence that a Design is at work. At the same time, other ID advocates point to what they claim are the incredibly high odds against the appearance of life to indicate that a Design is at work. Your "cake ingredients in the kitchen" analogy is good, but it doesn't really undercut the "heads ID wins, tails ID wins" of congeniality to life and improbability of life as both leading to the ID conclusion.
[Unrequited hug.]
It is true that both conditions support the argument for Intelligent Design. To argue against Intelligent Design, you'd have to prove abiogenesis and find an acceptable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, i.e. more than simply the "strong anthropic principle."
As I have mentioned before, I believe there is an objective "for" test, i.e. Algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
Of course, other IDers could argue that if such an algorithm was never found, it would not disprove intelligent design.
But that's pretty much your point, isn't it?
To me, this very paradox is a combination of two self-evident observations (or, one could say, conscious reflections) that are like a multiplication of factors leading one to believe in the Designer.
On the one hand, it is astounding how unfriendly the universe is, and on the other, it is (thankfully) amazing how hospitable Earth is. The one makes the other all the more wondrous by contrast.