Yes. Exactly. "We few, we happy few."
To me, looking at things from an evolutionary point of view, human life is far more valuable if it's the result of evolution than if it isn't. If the gods can end our existence whenever they like, and then with a snap of their divine fingers start it up all over again, and if they can repeat such whimsical actions as often as they wish, then we're little more than cheap toys, to be discarded without a thought, then re-acquired again at no expense. What's so special about human life in a setup like that?
Evolution teaches that we find ourselves at what is presently the end of a long line -- a very long line -- of fortuitous mutations that have survived innumerable extinction events and natural calamities. This implies that our kind will never happen again. I think that makes us very special, very rare, very precious. That's the perspective I gain from understanding evolution.
From a science point of few, specialness is irrelvant. You are certainly getting close to another of my pet themes--the hubris of scientists. The more unaccountable (as Rightwingprofessor alludes with his "it's unexplorable, therefore don't expect to know anything but what I tell you to know" ) the field of study, whether BigBang in astronomy, or formulating competing fairy tales as to the origins of human life--the more hubris. The more "scope for the imagination" as Anne of Green Gables said.
The evidence should lead to a reasonable conclusion, but you are reasoning from the other direction with an agenda of your own--that agenda being the ascendence of the scientist. Perhaps even a sort of science priesthood.
It's so easy to avoid those pesky qualifiers (or hide them under heaps of exhuberant self-congratulation) when no one may gainsay you, one way or the other. What cannot be disproven also may not be proven.
I find the claims of the UofChicago, as presented in this article, to be outlandish in the extreme.