Hmmm is this a fortuitous series of accidents or the work of a superior Designer?
There's no evidence that such a Designer existed or could have existed.
Where is it more rational to lodge my faith?
Probably in the view supported by the methodology with proven results. That would be the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.
But science isn't a place for faith, and the origin of life is not a question of faith. You shouldn't be so quick to demand a settling of the question when we're hardly looked into it, yet. There's much to discover about the origin of life. Why can't "I don't know yet" be an appropriate answer to that question?
Or, more determinantly, which of these two interpretations do you want to believe in
The one that is correct. I, for one, do not allow what I want to be true to affect my conception of what is true, and I don't understand why a rational person would think otherwise. What does it matter which one of those interpretations we
want to be true?
The one we should "believe in" is the one that is right. Which one is that? We don't know yet. Why isn't that answer good enough for you?