I argue ‘pure science’ methodologically when talking about science, and that includes statistics and ‘randomness’. You fail to do that and conclude ‘poof’ out of incredulity.
I argue God’s providence when speaking about purpose and meaning when speaking about faith and religion ‘philosophically’. You fail to do that and deny his providence and sovereignty in the face of scripture.
What readers see in Richard is illogic and denial of science, and they recognize an argument from incredulity when they see one and an insistence on ‘poofing’ in spite of all the scientific evidence against it, your inability to recognize the same being obvious.
So you’re in denial philosophically, denying God’s sovereignty in spite of multiple scriptures, and you’re in denial scientifically, in spite of the multiple and overwhelming evidences for nested hierarchy.
Signed,
Dale, the evolutionary providentialist “who leaves God out of evolution” per Mr. Gillett, good grief, and yes, only the scientific part of it which cannot address that aspect.
“We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.” I.B. Singer 
I feel so much like a puppet and think everyone else is too. 
