... if for no other reason than that the very proposition isn't testable/provable (if we are, the programmers of the simulation could code against it being discoverable, or change stuff any time we got close to evidence, or even "roll back" the simulation in "time" for a different outcome).
But, and this is one of those "I was thinking about it when going to sleep and say, oh, wow" things:
What is DNA if not a rules set for procedural generation of characters?
Yes, it's fallacious to jump from perceiving what looks like design to believing there's a designer. Just because we came up with a concept for our own purposes, it doesn't follow that an analog to that concept having existed in nature for billions of years was also drummed up by some intelligence.
But I still find it interesting.