Science is not _dys_teleological, it is **a**teleological. There’s a huge difference in those tiny prefixes.
Because science is **a**teleological (not **dys**teleological), a Christian is free to view it from a teleological perspective. We can say by faith that God created the universe and its workings in order to display His glory, to provide us with an arena in which to work for Him and know His goodness, etc. Science can describe the workings of the universe, but it cannot describe its purposes. You need faith to describe purposes, and science (which is **a**teleological) cannot supply it. But neither can **a**teleological science disprove the purposes we discern by faith.
It is true that Dawkins thinks that science is **dys**teleological. But we do not have to accept his opinion on the matter, do we? When did the writings of Dawkins become canonical for the church?
I agree wholeheartedly with you that science does not explain everything. It does a terrible job of explaining non-kin altruism, as your essay points out. It also does a terrible job of explaining Beethoven’s symphonies and Dali’s artwork.
Science does, however, explain genomic data and geological data, among other things, quite well.
Actually, it does add up. You and Joshua Swamidass have already had a conversation about this. Here’s what Joshua said:
Our ancestors have explored billions and trillions of mutations since they diverged from chimpanzees 6 millions of years ago (try the rough calc. 6 million x 20,000 popsize x 100 mutations/gen / 15 years / gen). So we have very roughly trillion trials to tweak a few thousand gene expression and splicing signals, and there are many ways it can happen (there is not a unique solution), most of the differences we se are not even necessary (they are random drift), and sexual reproduction means they can happen in parallel (not one after the other). Remember we see this mechanism at play already on directly observable timescales.
Here is your reply:
For AS, or GE, or ATI/ATT, or epigenetics, etc., to create a human from a primitive ape would mean evolution had to have created 25000 genes, and the molecular mechanisms to create that change.
The entire human genome consists of 25,000 genes. You seem to be stating that every single one of the 25,000 human genes is de novo. Yet we know that the vast majority of human genes have homologues on the chimpanzee genome. So your analysis is off by orders of magnitude.
You also made the appeal to incredulity in response to Swamidass’ analysis:
The level of serendipity is astronomical. Can you imagine the chance evolution just happened to create all that stuff, which incredibly turned out to make humans?
But science often defies credulity. As Feynmann stated about quantum theory:
Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there.
Or as Mermin stated with more pith:
Anybody who’s not bothered by Bell’s theorem has to have rocks in his head.
So the value of a scientific theory should not be decided on whether it seems fantastic or quotidian. Rather, the question is how well does the theory match up with our carefully gathered data? As it turns out, we have observed the mechanisms of evolution at work in Lenski’s lab and in the mice of Madeira and in a metaphorical gas giant of other research.
You are bothered by the mechanisms postulated by the theory of evolution. Perhaps we should all be, even as we should all be bothered by Bell’s theorem in quantum physics. But that does not mean that Bell’s theorem or the theory of evolution are not good science.
So I disagree with you on the scientific analysis. But I agree with you on your most important point: we are not an accident of randomness. God created us with divine purpose!
Have a great weekend. Will we see an LA team in the Super Bowl soon? Now that would stretch credulity too far! 
Chris Falter