Teleology, which is the study of design or ultimate 'purpose' to describe the process of all phenomenon, is a word that's deeply repugnant to scientists — though not necessary to science itself. In biology, for instance, Darwin set this line of thought when he said that to explain, say, the eye, it wasn't necessary to posit some 'motive' or 'force' behind its development just because its structure seemed to be so incredibly complex. The process of natural selection can quite comfortably deal with the problem, and natural selection is, of course, blind. Evolution doesn't see what an eye does but only that it happens to be helpful to an animal that possesses one.
At the same time, what frames the rules governing evolution? Or anything similar? Six and seven will make 13 no matter if we exist or not and some ET did the addition instead. No matter also if space, time or the universe existed or not; no matter if there is a God or there isn't. But what makes adding happen in the first place? Surely, that's at least a rule that seems to be eternal and infinitely pervasive.
The physicist Paul Davies once elaborated his take on teleology without invoking a direction of the universe towards a final goal set by a creator. Take a 64-square black-and-white board, he said, and ask a bunch of people unfamiliar with chess or any other board play, to make up the rules of a game that could be played on it. Chances are anyone can do this — although it might not be interesting or deeply organised. One could say, well, keep eight pebbles along opposite edges and try to make it to the other end as fast as possible moving eight columns at a time. It's a game, sure, but would anyone in their right minds want to play it?
On the other hand, the rules of chess have been very, very carefully selected in such a way as to lead to an almost endless variety of interesting play. But the point is this: having decided the rules, the details of a given chess game are not fixed in advance because that ultimately depends on the player and the game played.
In fact, some people are good at it, some aren't and some don't even know how to make their moves. But there you have it: purpose-made for a purpose where the end isn't fixed like most religions would have us believe. (However, this doesn't mean a still better and more attractive game than chess cannot be designed by anyone.)