[BroJoeK]

from the article: "As the late paleontologist Stephen Gould admitted, 'I believe that... any replay of the tape would lead evolution down a pathway radically different from the road actually taken.'
No wonder 'The Purpose Driven Life' has sold a gazillion copies.
The alternative is purposelessness not only for one life but all life."

That seems to be the money-quote and point of this otherwise pointless article.
The answer is that because natural-science, by definition, deals only with natural explanations for natural processes -- i.e., evolution -- it must necessarily posit "random" chance and "purposeless" events.
In order to see purpose and direction to such matters as evolution, you must first recognize something higher than natural and more directed than chance.
No, I'm not being coy here, just trying to spell out a point of departure between natural and supernatural, between worldly and God.

If you believe God created the Universe then no process like evolution is ever "random", "purposless" or "undirected", regardless of how it appears not natural science.

[BroJoeK]

ooops, typo:

"how it appears not natural science." should read
"how it appears to natural science."

[Zeneta]

Every newly discovered missing link in the fossil record or tree of life creates at least two more missing links.

And this is considered science.

Moving further away from the truth.

[JimSEA]

I’m more concerned with learning “the reason why” rather than trying to deduce “the purpose of”. Trying to warp the natural world to fit an ancient allegorical writing is impossible. However if you read the writing as a guide to morality and how to conduct your personal life and what values the state or tribe you live in, I can support that.