I don't see how that's any different from Laplace, Weinberg, or myself declaring that divine purpose is unnecessary (even weaker: not obviously necessary) to explain the workings of the universe...or the mind.
Right now we have excellent physical models that describe the motions of the planets, the formation of stars and galaxies, the origin of species, and even the unfolding of the universe, and none of these models employ "purpose" or "will" in their descriptions. Someday, I expect soon, we may have such a model for the mind. Many religions will take a serious blow, but God will go on as ever before.
This is the danger I have been trying to convince the Creationists about. Once they insist on starting the argument about whether Evolution is valid or not, what happens if they lose? Or at least lose the argument in the mind of one person?
Christianitys stated goal is to bring people to accept Christ. If a Creationist insists that to believe in God/Christ, you have to believe in a 6 day creation, then some people will reject God. Because they physical evidence just isn't there.
If on the other hand religious people merely decide to interpret the few words in Genesis dealing with the subject wide enough to allow for Evolution to exist. Then the problem is gone.
Religion and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, except in the mind of Creationists.
In fact, if I were of a mind to discredit religion, the best way I could imagine to do so would be to start a Creationism/Evolution fight, and then lose it. Taking with me the belief of all who've participated.
Christians should be avoiding this argument, and instead they're pushing it. That's double stupid.