Did your mom ever teach you to cook for yourself? Or does she always just cook your own meals for you? If you were playing a game like chess with your parents, or or something similar, would you prefer to have them allow you to win all the time? Or would you prefer them to teach you just enough that you could learn to win the game without any help?
Perhaps they wanted to create a variety of races who learned to do for themselves. Who could grow sophisticated enough on their own to discover the clues hidden in their own DNA to lead them all to the same conclusion; that they share more in common with each other than the differences. Of course, given the conflict among races in the galaxy, this could be perceived as a spectacular failure.
If I was creating a race from scratch I would skip the the stage where they're shitting themselves, yes. Especially, if the process of their creation involved billions of years of suffering and had absolutely no guarantee of producing the species I wanted it to at the end, let alone independently producing virtually the exact same species on thousands of planets throughout the galaxy.
I didn't even bring up the fact that these species, when they did finally meet, spent centuries trying to obliterate each other but now that you mention it there's no reason to go through centuries of warfare (with millions of innocent deaths) when you could just tell them what you needed them to know right from the start.
There is no benefit to learning something on your own that compensates for the deaths of millions of sentient beings. Having a good grasp of epistemology so you can work other stuff out in the future is important but if you're designing them from scratch you can give them that. You can program them to be ideal Bayesians (or as close to it as you can get). Note, that we are not ideal Bayesians. Our reasoning is shit. Look up some cognitive biases, for endless examples like the availability heuristic
or scope neglect
. If the aliens were trying to give us the ability to perform good reasoning, they failed, big-time. And the reason for this is that our brains evolved. That's why we're good at reasoning about situations that resemble the ancestral environment and awful at things like quantum physics. It's not biologically useful - quite the opposite - to reason accurately about large numbers of people, hence scope neglect makes us care no more about a million deaths than we do about a hundred.
For so it is written: "A fool learns from his mistakes, but a truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others."
I mean, evolution isn't aiming for
humans. So what would have happened if, at the end of this process, they had a planet full of silicon-based species of semi-sentient fungi? Would they have dropped a meteorite on the planet and slaughtered every living thing so that some other more humanoid species could evolve? How did they time it so that every single planet got effectively the same species of homo sapiens all at the exact same time?
Why didn't they just create a species of humanoids there and then with their obvious mastery of genetic engineering?
Still...by the end of DS9, many of the races of the Alpha and Beta Quadrants actually are united.
But this story idea cannot entirely be laid at Ron Moore's feet. From TOS, there came the concept of the Preservers, an ancient "super" race that went around the galaxy rescuing races in danger of extinction and transplanting them to distant and often terraformed worlds. This was thought to be the reason why there were so many humanoid races in the galaxy. And why there are so many "Class-M" worlds
Moore actually had the Preservers in mind when they made this episode. It's not implicitly stated that the beings in The Chase are the Preservers, but RDM claims nothing excludes them from being the Preservers.
How does this improve things?