Only if you are absolutely sure you know what the state-space and the selection criteria were, so that you could produce honest statistics. Otherwise, this is a notion brought to you by the fine offices of the American Guessing Association. This is a particularly silly example, in that the "design" of atoms seems likely to be predicated on the very fact here viewed as an astonishing coincidence.
You contention has been aptly dubbed by PH the principle of retroactive astonishment. It appears (galavanting particle physicists aside) that the universe, out of all the myrid futures that could unfold, can only unfold one. Whichever one it unfolds will seem astonishingly unlikely, but that is because all the futures that didn't happen don't get to vote.
If not, what kind of mechanism might an evolutionist propose as a cause for this kind of consistency throughout the known world?
Conservation laws arising from symmetries born of the balancing act of particles and forces in the beginning? Electrons and positrons arise from nothing, and return to nothing when they collide. Net charge is conserved--the books stay balanced. Any accountant could explain how apparently organized magic can arise from adhering like iron to a few simple accounting equations.
Do you believe it is preposterous to infer that some kind of design may be at the bottom of this?
No, not in the least, I so choose, in fact. This, however, has no bearing on science, which wants to explain things about the material world using material evidence. To the extent that ID wants to point to an immaterial cause, what ID, in my opinion, wants to ask, is for science to try to have some compentence outside this venue. It is too much to ask.
It may have an immaterial cause, but who can know? Who can know which immaterial cause? If you are talking about things immaterial, than evidence is irrelevant, and evidence is the only crank science knows how to turn.
Later you debunk ID insofar as it presents an "immaterial cause." May I ask how your suggestion qualifies as a "material cause?"
My favorite example is the card deck. Shuffle a deck of 52 thoroughly and lay it out. Whatever it is you're seeing, it had one chance in 52 factorial (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48 ... x 1) of being there. Wow! Not very likely!
Do it again, whatever you get will be similarly improbable. Every time, you're guaranteed to get one and only one from a large space of possibilities.