Hehe... I am not sure we can equate science with purposeful behaviour. But then, I guess what constitutes science is at times as controversial as what constitutes purposeful behaviour. Perhaps, at least in the case of behaviour, it is the intent that counts.
But regardless of what you call it, purpose or accident, both terms are somewhat presumptuous if we take into account that we know nothing conclusive about our origins, nor about where the future may take us.
For myself, I do not believe there is such a thing as chaos. The term is simply applied whenever we fail to see all the factors involved in any given scenario to which we would apply the label.
Similarly, the term purpose implies some plan behind what is going on, and "logic" would sometimes have us conclude that there must be some intelligence or intent behind what is going on. But isn't that a result of transferring the logic that applies in our daily lives to an abstract level where the same rules might not apply?
It is the same as when we contemplate the end/edge of the universe. Some people cannot wrap their heads around the idea that there in nothing beyond it. Simply because logic demands that there must be something. The thing that is really happening is that we transfer a set of principles from where they are tested and found useful to an abstract level where they may or may not be applicable. The result is that the logic that was shaped by the world it's made to describe and categorize in turn shapes the world.
But maybe this is all getting abit off topic...
Anyway, when it comes to artificial life, I fail to see what would make it different from life as we know it. The method of making it, for all we know, may be artificial, but life is life, wether it came to be by what we would call chaos or within the controlled environment of a lab.