Right, but that talk of "why" questions and of natural "processes" is the neo-Aristotelianism I was talking about in the other thread. I'm not saying that that teleology is crazy, but Smolin points out that it's been sidelined since Galileo. The mainstream scientific question now would be, rather, how the universe evolves, not why it does so. Most scientists recognize Aristotle's questions of efficient causes, not the final causes or purposes that entail meaning. Most scientists aren't Aristotelians anymore.
Now, whether cosmology nevertheless entails Aristotle's final causes and the whole teleological picture is an interesting question. Conservative theologians often argue that it does, so they can slip in their traditional values as "natural laws." For instance, homosexuality would turn out to be unnatural and against nature's purpose for evolving us. I argue against one such apologist below:
