Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

This is the main problem in a nutshell.  You have this grand explanation which is predicated on reductionistic explanations being insufficient.   You even made a brief stab at why you think so in your OP.  However, at the end of the day, you can only demonstrate the insufficiency of known reductionistic explanations.  Which means by dismissing reductionistic explanations as a whole, you are also dismissing reductionistic explanations which are currently unknown.   This is a textbook appeal to ignorance as you are basing your dismissal on our being ignorant and unaware of good reductionistic explanations for these things, by focusing on a subset of those explanations, namely ones that are known, and more precisely that are known to you.  T

When Christians say, "God has a hidden purpose for creating this kind of dark world," atheists regard this as a copout.

Likewise I regard your post as a copout. You are basically saying, "Reductionism has some hidden tenets that would resolve it's apparent deficiencies."

That's not a reasonable position, because reductionism is what it is. It cannot be more than the deterministic reality that it defines itself as. Once you go beyond that boundary, you've plunged into panpysychism. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Whether you regard it as a copout is really immaterial to whether your argument is or isn't fatally flawed. All you're basically doing is showing that you aren't arguing based on reason in good faith.

A simple example. Before Darwin, theologists thought divine creation was a reasonable explanation because naturalism couldn't explain the diversity of life. Then came Darwin. It isn't the case that the theollogists were temporarily right, no, they were always wrong. They were wrong before and after, no matter how much they might have declined to accept the consequences of simple logic, just as you do.

Misapplication of the law of the excluded middle is a fallacy, your fee fees notwithstanding.