I do? Wrong. What I "HAVE to" be saying is a another mischaracterization of my post, less than wholly honest and, as noted in my last post, a sophomoric debating tactic. Logic is a limited tool, dealing only with what it is given and then only in its limited way. Logic will generate the conclusion inherent in the assumption. Further, you attempt to change the subject away from the deficiencies of Darwinism toward Creationism, which is a dodge. Unlike Darwinism, true science welcomes scrutiny. Until you learn to debate fairly, this debate is over. With yourself having lost it.
So you're saying that your assertion "Evolution excludes purpose" has circular meaning by necessity and therefore cannot usefully describe reality. So why did you say it?