Very interesting thoughts Sender, a couple of questions/issues.

The quote highlighted says objective observation shows no deliberate intent. Of course, I don't see it that way. Isn't it our natural human intuition that when we see something that is marvelously formed and highly functional to assume it got there by intent rather than pure accident? Atheist scientist studying evolution have gone away from relying on purely random mutations combined with natural selection as that explanation alone fails to account for the diversity--often rapid--of life and the introduction of new and extremely effective genetic information. They talk of "natural teleology" and "natural magic" but the natural part is an evasion of what seems intuitive, which is the design hypothesis. What could natural teleology be? You have a great explanation but I would suggest there is nothing in our human experience that leads us to support such an idea.

You also say the great spirit of animism and the idea of a transcendent and immanent God requires dualism. Not sure that is right. Have you considered the Pauli-Jung conjecture? It's referred to as dual aspect monism, something that physicist-priest Polkinghorne preferred. Your thougts?