This seems to have remained hidden from those advocating Intelligent Design. They have, for two hundred years, been unable to explicate the process, provide specific examples, or describe the who, how, when and where of it.
Simply saying it is built in to the nature of matter is a restatement of the anthropic principle or fine tuning.
If you don't mind, science will continue its business of unraveling the specifics of this fine tuning. It makes no difference to the methods and goals of science.
Two hundred years? Your version of history suddenly shrinks, as if the world did not know how to conduct science until Charles Darwin arrived on the scene. In general, science has been undertaken with the assumption the obsevable universe is intelligible, and as such is quite possibly a product of intelligent design. This assumption has little or no effect on the general conduct of science. To see you and your ilk jump like frogs at the suggestion intelligent design might be behind it all only serves as a clear indicator you are not really interested in science per se, but in defending a personal ideology that may have little or no bearing on objective reality.