What you’ve missed is that language is not reducible in the way material things are. So it’s not explainable in terms of mass-energy. This is why I say it’s a real problem for naturalism. The few naturalists smart enough to know they can’t escape this are the ones who realize they have no choice but to resort to the absurd claim that language and thought do not really exist.
And as for the “God of the Gaps” argument, if you think it hasn’t itself been debunked, you’re not up to date on the latest debates. John Lennox of Oxford has this to say about God of the gaps:
“That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a ‘God of the gaps’, he is God of the whole show.”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/
The strength of novel argumentation by scholars like John Lennox, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Frank Turek and many others has transformed the growl of the old recycled atheist arguments into little more than a whimper.
This type of absurd claim is only rendered more absurd by you posting something from the "Christian Post" as evidence.
Look, you're exhibiting the God of the Gaps argument right now. The God of the Gaps argument says that anything that can't understood by current science is the work of "God".
It's a nonsensical argument as I said before.
You might as well say "language can only come from Allah."
Lennox is a believer, so he has no prerogative to debunk his own beliefs. It's ridiculous to think he would. I wouldn't expect to read an article in the "UFO Post" debunking UFOs, or an article in "Islam Today" debunking Mohammed's night flight.
Time to branch off outside of your wheelhouse.