Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

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.

It's a false dichotomy and/or a non-sequitir to insist,  "Naturalism is cogent hence creation is non-cogent." 

Furtheremore, reductionistic naturalism is not cogent, for reasons that I gave.  You seem to expect me to kiss up to scientists and science textbooks, even when they make seemingly ridiculous claims. All I've done on this thread is challenge science-minded people to address my arguments persuasively.  That has not happened.