I would say that the argument works just as well for evolution and natural selection and certainly doesn’t serve as evidence against.
Take the sunflower for example, it makes evolutionary sense that the most effecient way to store seeds in the same amount of space would be seen there because that particular formation would have more seeds than any other and would therefore have more “offspring” and thus over time it would become the dominant form of its species.
As for the fact that this sort of thing follows a mathematical pattern, I don’t see how that proves a creator without invoking the logical fallacy that a creator must exist to make the patterns. The patterns in and of themselves don’t prove anything about their origins.
The argument for intelligent design insists that there is an obvious difference between something occuring by chance and something designed and that everything around us was “obviously designed.” However, how can one claim to be able to recognize the difference between design and chance if one presupposes that everything was designed? If you don’t know what something existing by chance looks like then how can you definitively say that what exists around us isn’t just that? You can’t. All you can do in engage in a confirmation bias that looks at the good things and calls it design, while simultaneously dismissing all the things that make no logical sense from a designer’s standpoint.
Evolution and natural selection however provide logical explanations for both extremely efficient mechanisms and crazy bullshit that makes no logical sense, and both of those things exist in nature in vast quantities whether creationists are willing to admit it or not.