Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

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.

And your attitude seems to be, "All things are potentically explicable exhuastively by science even when simple reasoning suggests it is illogical to presume so."

No, my attitude is that we don't know what the explanation is, but that it is fatal to an argument to assume there isn't one. It's not about reductionism, it's basic logic. And you seem to have an issue with it. And now in addition to textbook argument from ignorance and textbook equivocation, you've added a strawman. Sinple reasoning according to the tenets of logic are that it is illogical to assume either way. But you have a problem with that, because your argument requires you to draw a conclusion in one direction, even though doing so is illogical.