Hmmmm, I'm not sure if I agree with you unless I am misunderstanding you. "These constants" are not the way they are because of nature, but on the contrary, nature is the way it is because of "these constants". If it's the other way around, then all of a sudden you've created a "demi-god" of sorts who's name is "Nature" and...wait...is this an argument for the existence of God? Because I thought....oh well, never mind.
I now understand your rock analogy, it has to do with probability? Now, forgive me if I am still not understanding the analogy, but it would seem to me that probability makes the problem worse. Why? Not because we're dealing with numbers, but because we're dealing with a number. In as much as we have forces, attraction, and unattraction, and these "constants of the universe" desire a specific number in order to function, any deviation equals zero probability. It's not "10 to the negative 'some really big number'," it's zero. It's why you can plug these numbers into equations without worrying about getting irrational answers. That's how we sent men to the moon. That's why we always first assume human error. That is why, in the event of no perceived or evident human error, we can create theories on an as of yet undiscovered universal constant; we were just missing some part of the greater math equation (a nod to quantum and subquantum physics). The take home point is this: these constants haven't evolved, they've been the way they are since the origin of the universe. To leave something like this to chance is simply incomprehensible.