We humans are a game of chance. If someone from the outside classifies the Earth, he will call it the planet of dinosaurs. Their evolution is tens of millions of years and is still continuing in the form of birds, and ours is some miserable several hundred thousand. If someone from the outside wants to revive life on Earth after a nuclear war, they will most likely take a chicken, slightly alter its DNA, and get a living being most adapted to earthly conditions.
And why should this evolution please you with intelligent design?
Our design is locally optimal. Locally is optimal. Optimal, but only locally. Those. - relatively minor changes to this very design - and the environment that gave rise to it. But change that dramatically - and evolution will have to look for another local optimum.
As a creationist, I do not support the "game of chance", but I support the idea that human design is locally optimal and ideal for life on planet Earth, and even has a large set of "modifications" for different climatic and more specific conditions ...
From the point of view of creationism, the Creator acted in exactly the same way as the creators of rovers do, choosing the optimal design and technical solutions for a longer and more fruitful mission. Probably, the aesthetic component was also important for Him, so we are (for the most part) sympathetic.
There are, of course, completely unscientific, esoteric-conspiracy theories about the mysterious symbolism hidden in the proportions of a person, but this already, probably, some pranoedians will be able to answer better.