"My point is that we shouldn't dismiss the anthropocentric interpretations entirely, but should look at them ironically as indicating a monstrous pseudo-intelligence and creativity in nature."

This sounds to me like you simply want to keep some anthropocentric interpretations so you can mock otherwise neutral facts (are you, perchance, pissed off at universe?). It also seems to me that that's also the approach which gives you ammunition to fire at folks who twist themselves into pretzels in order to interpret neutral facts as intrinsically meaningful, divine, etc.

Did you ever try to stop categorizing and conceptualizing and see what simply is as it is?

Anyway, yes, I'm all for calling universe just a series of events, as well as calling creation and destruction simply change. At least as far as metaphysical considerations go. We can then bask in anthropocentric connotations in our "mundane" day-to-day ventures to our hearts' contents ;)