If you think that no scientist can rule out whether or not we have a foreordained destination, you may be so open-minded as to have abandoned a reasonably scientific position. If you say that evolution is creative and is expressing life in a certain manner, then by which criteria can you test this hypothesis? If some thinker produces a doctrine with implications that life is goal-driven, and therefore is somehow determined magically, then how is this different than the world view of a 17th century monk? Teleologic progress from lower categories to higher ones in history always carry a supposition that there is a meddling god, a unifying motive force in human nature, a material or spiritual dialectic or some other unprovable axiomatic destination for humankind. The problem with magic (outside of the fact of its shyness in daylight hours), is that it refuses to be witnessed or measured by science. It relies totally on testimony. Many of these thinkers who would smuggle this sort of magic into science, when it comes to the social sciences, practice scientism. It’s the misapplication of the methods of the physical sciences to the social ones, especially used to manufacture support for the all-embracing medical-therapeutic world-view. It’s the belief that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical inquiry and the thinkers who practice it, are in general, disposed to an equalitarian view of life and a paternal one of government. In Enlightenment Now, Steven Pinker's definition of it is too exclusive; thus for example, the incorrect application of deterministic scientific view to economics which involves the study of choices, even moral choices, is an incorrect tool (which we call scientism). To study it as an art with some mathematical models, a healthy dose of reason and lots of skepticism for any predictions is the proper demeanour in approaching this slippery topic and others like it.

Norse Adage:
"Predictions are Exceedingly Difficult
Especially About the Future."

Even some philosophers are open purveyors of scientism. For instance, if sociology would discover laws of human society like other natural laws by applying the methods of the physical sciences, then they practice scientism; if they find that civil-social order is bound by if-therefores, then they ignore humankind’s actual real freedom to create ideas and change the course of history. If they want to amass usable knowledge to help humankind manage a free society better, then they must be, in part, also, anthropologists, historians, moralists, philosophers and especially, economists.* Sociologists do not necessarily have to be discoverers of new underlying laws which restrict our freedom. If they managed this task, unlike Comte or Marx did, surely their science would at last be proved valuable to humankind.

Most thinkers who practice scientism
Also practice historicism and constructivism

Historicism is the false inveighing of teleological ends into history, or the historical belief that “our story” is predetermined by some factor (usually economics, context or Zeitgeist) and humankind has no real freedom. For instance, historical technical determinism suffers from such a begging of the question. If the invention of the stirrup led to the far superior armed cavalry, what created the saddle, the metal armor of the knights, the weapons, training, breeding and domesticating the horses and the fortress from whence they came? Freak electrical storm systems perhaps? Maybe magic intervention of local deities? No, the stirrup did not lead to the fall of the Roman Empire. However it was an idea that indeed led to the world’s decline into the Dark Ages – that idea was Christianity – and at around 300AD this particularly intolerant religion officially took over the government of Rome. Historicism is an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is the primary aim. It poses that this object is attainable by discovering the rhythms, patterns, laws or the trends that underlie the evolution of organic history, that is, that we are not really free–that we are trapped by history itself. These “types” of historians always make predictions, they are always “gloom and doom” and their prognostications are always wrong, and like Hegel, often downright evil..

Rousseau’s Social Contract is a classic example of an abuse of reason, where animal instinct, will of the people and collectivism are preferred over individual reason. The philosopher’s main tools to fact find and check are criticized with an appeal for group think. Anyone who believes there was freedom in a hunter-gatherer or native farming tribes compared to democratic freedoms and human rights in the market economy protected by Rule of law are in a fantasy. Traditional people have many good qualities but also some bad ones. For instance we see in Jared Diamond’s The World until Yesterday that tribal warfare among Hunter-Gatherers in some cases can be the number one cause of death among males.

Constructivism (as Friedrich Hayek defines it), is the abuse of science or reason to promote the belief that we should completely control our environment, thus often justifying any means to do so. The disciples of constructivism often put faith in political force and/or violence for social ends. For instance, socialists have in the past practiced constructivism. Historicism has been theorized by Hegel, Marx, Comte, Spengler, Nietzsche, Dewey, Voegelin, Foucault, Kuhn and others. Historicism, scientism and constructivism have done unimaginable damage to the progress of science and mankind. They are the real axis of evil, each concept an auxiliary to the belief that men are animals who like rats in a maze, have absolutely no freedom to rip out a page of the book of stone called, “The Preordained.”

The Real Axis of Evil has Manifested after 2016,
The Lurch Toward Totalitarianism and Universal Censorship,
Did Not Come from the Religious Right as so many Predicted,
But Indeed, from the Ridiculous Left and the religion of neoMarxism. 

The trouble with the determined, predestined and fatalist’s position is that outside of presupposing that people have a slave mentality, it is generally overly sympathetic to large cradle-to-grave welfare governments, even totalitarian ones. Normally, it distrusts individualism; to counter this bad philosophic position and others like it such as positivism, please read, Six Reasonable Men, a story about the six most important modern philosophers, one of them who is Karl Popper and another who is Friedrich Hayek. 
"Popper's epistemology has, in every pragmatic sense, become the prevailing theory of the nature and growth of scientific knowledge. When it comes to the rules for experiments in any field to be accepted as 'scientific evidence' by theoreticians in that field, or by respectable journals for publication, or by physicians for choosing between rival medical treatments, the modern watchwords are just as Popper would have them: experimental testing, exposure to criticism, theoretical explanation and the acknowledgement of fallibility in experimental procedures." D Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality.
"For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man's knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in these riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from an obscurantist faith in the expert's special skill and in his personal knowledge and authority." K Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
*Social activists don’t go into the social sciences as neutral objective students, but are unrequited socialists pretending to be objective scientists and researching evidence which produce works such as Bowling Alone and Predictably Irrational. Sociologists don’t lose their “naive” views on human freedom and become determinists because of their studies -- more than 15 percent of the social scientists in America are neo-Marxists; the aged cognitive function of applying Marxist philosophy to the social sciences is simply awkward, wildly embarrassing and exceedingly bad philosophy. They are determinists before any “patterns” and “hidden laws” are found underlining human behavior. As for economists, there are two types: the Misesians  – the ones who believe that like philosophy, economy is an art not a science, and the other: the majority Keynesians like Paul Krugman, who don’t believe in the free market and practice it like a science. In the latter is where all the socialist-economists calling themselves “Liberals” congregate, and they rush the free world to its doom.
In 2025 and Beyond, Independent Minds and Skeptical Thinkers
Are a Direct threat to The Deep State,
The Unelected and Dense Cavity of the State,
Which extends from the Pentagon,
To the 22 Intelligence Agencies and on to America’s Diplomatic Services.
"Hayek was not an inflexible conservative, though. Our moral and legal rules do change, he observed, and indeed it is essential that we do adapt our practices to changing circumstances. That is how society evolves. Yet our best guide to what might work in the future remains what has worked in the past. The rules of action that we follow – often without even thinking about it – have at least brought us this far. They contain, he said, a certain wisdom or knowledge that serves us well. The zealots who seek to tear down the social order and substitute instead their own blueprint – constructivists, Hayek called them – overlook this knowledge content of established social rules, putting themselves at a serious disadvantage for their task." AND: "Science can show us that ice and water are in fact the same thing. Once we have established these regular relationships, we can use them to help predict – and control – the behaviour of natural objects. But the uncritical application of this extremely useful method to the social world is a grave error, which Hayek calls scientism. Natural scientists try to stand back from the natural world and explore its regularities without contaminating those findings with human judgements. But the social scientist’s subject matter is human behaviour and human relationships. When we try to eliminate human judgements and values – the aims, motives, ambitions, beliefs, relationships or emotions that make them do what they do – we eliminate everything that is important to how society works." AND: "Hayek also warned against historicism. This approach (exemplified in the works of Karl Marx), suggests that there are no general laws of social behaviour that apply in different societies or epochs, and that the only general laws are the historical laws of how one epoch (feudalism, say) turns into another (mercantilism). Both ideas are nonsense, said Hayek. There are some general laws, he insisted: even if the prices that applied in feudal England and ancient Egypt were obviously different, we can still be certain that monopolists in either would charge higher prices. And historical inevitability suggests that individuals have no control over their fate, but are somehow shaped by ‘society’; when in fact the opposite is true: it is individuals, and the relationships between them, who comprise and shape ‘society’."