Well, I would think the opposite: a meta-cognitive human, having more degrees of freedom, by exercising his meta-cognitive freedom of choice, can decide to exercise only selected choices according his pre-meditated purposes, and by doing this is capable of creating extremely ordered structures (computer programs, pieces of music, engineering structures etc).Because humans with meta-cognition have more degrees of freedom than non-human instinctive animals which in turn have more degrees of freedom than non-living Nature. A human can think-act in seemingly 'random' ways while the rest of Nature cannot. That's what I understand his argument to be.
I remember hearing from one of BK's interviews that the reasoning behind his view of non-metacognitive MAL has more to do with the moral problem of theodicy. He mentioned how cruel the nature is, giving an example of extreme suffering of an elephant eaten alive by lions for 6 hours. His argument was that a benevolent and meta-cognitive MAL would not create a natural world with so much suffering of animals, let alone humans (in genocides, wars, children dying from cancer etc)
