If so, you would understand that the essential governing forces, bond formation, secondary and tertiary structure of compounds naturally resulted in the shape and structure of DNA. The essential governing forces are described by equations that include measured dimensionless constants that cannot deviate appreciably before the current universe becomes uninhabitable. Somehow, these constants appear to have been selected for fitness.
"...The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.
If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible..."
Other examples of this type can be found here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml?main
What you need to realize is that evolutionist's live in a world where plays are written by monkeys randomly banging on keyboards rather than writers. Since they know that the works of Shakespeare could statistically be produced by an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time with an infinite number of typewriters, they see no reason to go looking for Shakespeare. That Romeo and Juliet exists is not proof of Shakespeare but proof that the right monkey just happened to bang on the right keys at the right time in the infinite expanse of time. And if we lived in a universe full of monkeys banging away at typewriters and churning out the odd play every now and then, that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption. The relgious believer wants to find "Shakespeare" among the monkeys because they can actually feel the presence of the writer past the monkeys. For that reason, they are unsatisfied by the explanation of infinite monkeys and, instead, seek to find the presence of the writer in the text. I don't think that's unreasonable, either. But you aren't going to understand the other side unless you understand their perspective. It's not going to make any sense from your perspective.