I did my thesis on the argument from design post-Darwin.
A lot of interesting discussion centers on how to reconcile the generalized principle of mediocrity with the apparently low probability of a life-supporting universe existing (in terms of how fine-tuned basic constants have to be for it to happen). Some people try to end-run around this with anthropic arguments (which better writers than myself have pointed out are fallacious when applied this way); others try to build on QM and a many-worlds approach to posit that a universe like ours is possible and thus must exist (and in fact a large number of them, similar but each slightly different, must exist). And some turn not to the Judeo-Christian literal-biblical-reading everything-created-in-six-days idea of "God", but to the general idea that our universe might be the product of intelligence.
And a lot of that work focuses on simulation arguments, which solve the seemingly-improbable "tuning" of our universe's physical constants by saying that they were in fact tuned by some intelligence for a particular purpose. That purpose need not be to produce us, or anything resembling us (perhaps we are simply a side effect of a set of constants that produce some other result that's actually of interest to the simulators), and might be as banal as "to see what happens when you plug in these values for the constants", but the purpose would nonetheless exist.
There's also a line of reasoning which comes out of that and says that once such a capability exists, suddenly our own universe does not appear so unlikely. All it takes is one universe, somewhere, with constants providing the ability to simulate other universes (which is more general and thus more likely than constants providing the specific configuration of our own universe), and you get to add not just simulations running in that universe, but simulations running in simulations running in simulations... and so on all the way down. At which point the number of universes which exist and support intelligent life grows dramatically, possibly even rivaling the number of universes which exist and do not support intelligent life.
Though on a completely different tack there are people who've run with the idea that singularities fire off big bangs of their own, producing new universes not visible from ours, and posited a kind of natural selection principle based on that: universes which give rise to singularities will have more "offspring", so universes which give rise to singularities should be more common than universes which don't. And since one easy way to get singularities is through organized clumping of matter which can then undergo gravitational collapse, and that same thing is what allows us to exist, it's not so unlikely to see our universe.