Scientists find no directed evolution, so both creationist evolution -Behe- and evolutionary creationism- Miller- fail as attempts to inject God into Nature. Miller, notable evolutionist that he i,s who fights Behe's intelligent design that allows for evolution with God as the god of the gaps, but in the end he actually endorses intelligent design himself under the guise of directed evolution as Amiel Rossow so notes in his essay on the yin and yang of Miller@ Talk Reason.
In fact, directed evolution of either kind means backward causation as Peter Weisz in ' The Science of Biology," implicitly notes. That causation would put the effect before the cause and the future before the present, negating time.
Weisz calls what scientists observe causalism whilst Ernst Mayr ["What Evolution Is"] calls it teleonomy, whence the name the teleonomic argument derives its name [also called the atelic one].This argument notes that the weight of evidence presents no planned outcomes -teleonomy rather than planned ones- teleology, such that no divine intent presents itself , and thus to invoke it would be to contradict science,but also violate Ockham's Razor.To aver such intent makes for the new Omphalos argument as one supernaturalist implicitly invokes it when he suggest that nevertheless God directs matters unobtrusively, John Hick's epistemic distance, which obfuscates matters.
Richard Swinburne notwithstanding, Nature itself is the more simple explanation as the latter needs convoluted, ad hoc assumptions. Swinburne errs in thinking that it is the number of parts of a theory that counts rather than the kind of assumptions required. Whether God is simple as he so claims or complex as Richard Dawkins claims is immaterial as He still requires those convoluted, ad hoc assumptions. The Metaverse theory is not such as Swinburne would claim that it involves many universes and so is less simple than God but rather has straightforward facts without convoluted. ad hoc assumptions so that it rather than God is the simpler theory!
 Thus this personal explanation that Swinburne and William Lane Craig favor is just God does what He does, a worthless tautology; God did it provides no useful explanation, not even being a worthy redundancy as Alister Earl McGrath claims in its violating the Razor!
 The God-theory provides for no new knowledge as it can predict nothing. Its scope is parasitic on natural laws and explanations such that it itself has no scope.  And it contradicts the law of conservation- background of knowledge with its teleology, thus not being able to validate itself as knowledge!
That then we live in a purposeless Metaverse does not lead to the non sequitur beloved of supernaturalists that thus we are forlorn. Nay, we create our own purposes and meanings and values. Francisco Jose Ayala errs grievously in proclaiming our need for values and the other must come from God in order to shake of dread and to find purpose as the arguments from angst and from happiness- purpose purport poorly! Therapy as I know so takes away that dread and our own Sally Field lives, purpose and human loves suffice against the future state, divine purposes and divine love. To aver like Ayala and Augustine with that unconfirmed argument from angst that we are restless unless we are in His bosom means that one brays at the moon! Study Robert Price's '"The Reason- Directed Life" and Albert Ellis's " The Myth of Self-Esteem," in order to learn how to lead that more abundant purposeful life!
When people think that their faith in Him- He helps those who help themselves- get them through life, they overlook their own inner resources that don't need Him as their motivation whatsoever as people can find other motivations.
Plato, supernaturalist himself- death for infidels- drives the point home that we don't need Him for morality.
Thus in no way does God have a function and is indeed a factually meaningless concept- the non-concept!
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning," Inquiring Lynn