I agree that ultimate explanations don't make the same kind of sense as limited explanations. I view absolute accounts as myths, and the problem is that we've forgotten how to read myths. We confuse stories that are subject mainly to aesthetic and to social criteria, with rational theories or literal truths. We've forgotten how to suspend our disbelief.
The problem with theism is that it no longer makes for a great story. The ancient tribal projections are too transparent for cynical postmodern mentalities. Monotheistic religions don't picture God as a buzz saw. If only they did so, they'd be Lovecraftian and we'd be talking about Cthulhu or Azathoth, not Yahweh or Jesus.
No, God is supposed to be a benevolent, wise, just designer and father figure. And that myth is lame in our civilizational context (as I explain in "Atheism and the Burden of Refuting the Preposterous").
You say it's obvious that there's intelligence in nature, but that's false. What there is is a natural order. There are patterns and regularities in the flow of events. Pantheism accounts for that order too. Darwin's theory of natural selection, for example, shows how organic forms can evolve with no governing intelligence. The same is true for the universe at large. As you say, that leaves the question of ultimate origins, but theism doesn't answer that question either.
Nature evolves just like species do. Galaxies and solar systems evolve, reaching equilibria as shepherded by natural forces and elements. For all we actually know, the flow of natural events is zombie-like, monstrous, mindless, amoral, and inhuman. Our zeitgeist calls for myths to feature that grim sensibility, which will leave behind our more childish bedtime stories.
