For better or worse I understand population genetics and the mechanisms of speciation well enough to spot the logical fallacies that are inevitable when people try to extrapolate a superficial understanding of evolution to other fields. While I don't have deep understanding of physics, the physicists I know don't put anything credence to attempts to extrapolate from science to philosophy or theology.
That said, physicists were the first scientists to apply the mathematics of fractals to complex systems and physicists who decided to explore biology were responsible for a revolution in advancements that characterized the 50s-70s.
Like you Stephanie, I'm spiritual and I can certainly see room for something beyond science that still fits well in my technical understanding of nature. However I stopped trying to use that to prove the existence of god a long time ago. I don't think it's a fruitful inquiry.
Gregory Bateson put forward some excellent theories back in the '60s why evolution must look prescient. Of course this was long before the ideas of intelligent design. And if course I find it fallacious that people who need to deny the assembled knowledge of evolution choose to do so by proposing it must be by intelligence - a human concept that is provably created by evolution. That isn't a mystery, rather a tautology.
Einstein noted that the whole problem of discovery is that the language for new constructs only exists after the discoveries happen. About the only thing i do believe at core is that reality is far more complex than we can imagine. Our understanding is forever improving and yet can never fully encompass reality itself. (And yes there are some proofs of this in the fields of mathematics and logic).
That for me is the mystery of life, we can only improve our imperfect understanding. I try not to draw a conclusion from this parallel but what I spend most of my time on is forever working to be better at the things I do. No matter what the field I've yet to find there isn't room to improve.
