I think that is a decent way to put it, although there are some minor differences WRT language. If we could start with "undirected" or "directed" as the two possibilities for existence as we know it we might be able to reason through some things coherently.
What concerns me, however, is that we may be missing some other logical possibility. True enough, one could say existence involves a combination of both directed and undirected phenomena, but as soon one mixes the two, in my opinion, its like donh brought up about being "almost pregnant." A better way to to say it: "a little bit pregnant." That's why I said to a fellow poster a little while back, the distinction between religion and science is is a good thing. But it must be, and can be, applied only to a certain extent.
I sense we will be able to reason through this together and be in agreement through several steps, and then part ways when the leap of faith must be made that a Personal Director is behind the scenes, whether involved or not.
If I am allowed in this the forum to do so, and if we can maintain cool heads, I think I can present a fairly reasonable argument - not PROOF! - that a Personal Director not only brought current existence into being, but is also constantly, actively involved with it.
If one wishes to go further into WHO that Personal Director is, then I must join with the evolutionists in saying it need not, indeed SHOULD not be addressed in the classroom. That's when the line has been crossed into an improper admixture of science and religion.
Are you with me?
Go for it. But, guided by experience, I agree you'll come to a point where, as you say, you will make a "leap of faith." Tell me, why do you feel you ought to make that leap? Why should I leap with you?