I think that's largely the case, but saying that "no natural selection lies behind mountains and whole planets" is not correct because natural selection doesn't lie behind life any more than mountains and planets. That's what bothers me here. Natural selection is a narrative, not a real thing. There is no actual 'selective force' or 'alternate histories' that the narrative suggests. We could look at a mountain range and say "What if the weather was different? Would the mountain range have evolved differently? How did the mountain range adapt to the weather?" But that language isn't as useful in geology. But, it is just a matter of language.

Finally, appreciation of the above means that this doesn't make sense:

But historical teleology — the question of whether evolution itself takes a direction, in particular a progressive one, is a trickier problem, and I cannot say that there is yet, nor the prospect of there ever being, a satisfactory answer.

Does the mountain range take a direction? That question is as tricky as whether or not life does.

I think Ruse ends up at almost the right place regarding purpose, but to some extent, I think he just moved the ball by hanging onto the validity of the teleology question.