If you will pardon me for saying so, I think you must not understand Darwinian evolution if you believe that there must be some design to what is going on. Darwinian evolution explains how complex life forms can exist without any design.
It is called "arrogance". People want to believe that they are more than what they are. Because people want to believe so badly, they do believe badly.
Well, pardon me, but I question both these statements. I don't want to get into the whole ID debate in this thread, but I no longer believe that Darwinism + Mendelian genetics accounts for the formation or final nature of life on earth. I think they are an important part of the scheme, but there are other principles at work which are yet to be discovered. This does not mean I support Biblical creationism, but I think there are deep philosophical and scientific issues sorrounding the question of 'evolution by natural selection' and the degree to which it is truly 'self-generating'. (This is being discussed in other threads.)
On the second point, I don't see why it is arrogant to believe that H. Sapiens is in a class of his own on this planet, or in the observable universe for that matter. It seems odd to me that scientific secularists insist that we are just a particular type of primate, when our intellectual, cultural, technological, and linguistic abilities are so obviously and radically different to any other creature. Sure, bottle-nose dolphins use sponges to hunt for food and New Caledonian crows can use sticks to dig for grubs. Tool use! Great! But nothing on earth, or anywhere else that we are able to find, is even remotely
like H. Sapiens. We are after all able to estimate the age, mass and extent of the visible universe, dissect and analyse our own genetic makeup and understand our own anatomy and environment in ways which are completely inconceivable in any other creature. And I think that makes H. Sapiens extremely special indeed.
I would be interested to know why you see this as 'arrogance'.
Finally, on a related note, the current mainstream outlook insists that 'nature is dumb' and that H. Sapiens (and all other species) are the products of natural selection, which is guided by nothing other than which species are likely to proliferate in the competition for resources. In this view, there is no 'reason, purpose or intention' in the Universe, as such. Nature acts without reason, purpose or intention, if indeed nature can be said to act. H. Sapiens is not pre-ordained or special in anyway, just the way the process happened to turn out. Run the sequence again, goes the idea, and we might end up with intelligent insects, or something.
Now I don't think you can dispute that H. Sapiens is able to act on the basis of reason, purpose and intention. We all have purposes, greater and smaller; we do things for reasons; we act intentionally all throughout our life. Now if it is the case that this ability has been engendered solely by adaption, and exaptation, then really you are saying that ours are the only conscious purposes in the Universe; because presumably no lesser animal is able to form a conscious purpose. So our purposes alone are the only real purposes.
Contrast this with any traditional world view (pick any you like.) All of them see a Universe alive with purpose, in which our purposes reflect, and hopefully harmonise, to a greater or lesser degree, the purposes of 'God', or 'the Gods', or Mother Nature, or (as the traditional Chinese would say) 'the Will of Heaven'.
So now having thrown all that out, the secular modern sees a universe with precisely no purpose, in which we exist for no particular reason; any reason which we choose to see in things is solely our own; but then says that to challenge this attitude on the basis that H. Sapiens might actually have a somewhat deeper relationship with the Cosmos than science can imagine is 'arrogant'.
Do you detect an irony here?