To #4 and #5:  

(4) The very existence of any laws of physics.  Why should there BE any?  Why should the universe "remember" the degree of gravitational force, from one moment to the next?  This, precisely, is why Einstein believed in God. 

But of course, in any universe that DOES exist there must be some physical laws. Without them there is, well, chaos.  In this universe, the one we can observe and attempt to measure, we see only one set of laws because they are the laws of THIS universe.  Of course, the possibilities are endless that other laws may exist other places, if they exist (see below).  

Gravity, on the other hand and as we understand it (and I'm pretty sure I have this right), is just a warping, a curvature, of space-time.  So without gravity, if I remember the way-out stuff from my readings, then the universe can't curve and it is flat, perfectly so, with objects lo longer "attracted" to each other.  The universe doesn't "remember" the gravitational force because there isn't anything to remember. Objects just respond to the warp around them.  

There shouldn't necessarily "be" any laws of physics.  But were there not, we wouldn't be pondering the issue right now.  There is an existential element to it, isn't there.   I've long been convinced there is a divine presence, benevolent and giving (as opposed to angry), because there must be one if we want to believe that right and wrong aren't simply relative.  Minus that spark and presence then morality is simply a a debating point:  Murder the Jews or a huge chunk of the Cambodian population?  Why not, if man is the ultimate authority and no greater truth exists. The ripples from such reasoning move outward, like a tsunami, and drown us all.  It can not be as that, and more so we should be glad it isn't. 

Of course, I'm no theologian.

5) The fine-tuned universe.  If the electromagnetic force constant were off by 1 part in quadrillions (?)  in either direction, life could not evolve.  Steven Hawking remarked, "I think there are clearly religious implications."  

Ah, but perhaps life didn't evolve, maybe many times.   Alan Guth, an MIT physicist, has suggested that new universes (known as “pocket universes”) are constantly being created, but they cannot be seen from our Universe.

Personality out of impersonal forces? I think that takes a real leap of faith In the power of...stuff. So far as morality, I think the Pope had it right in evoking the Golden Rule. 

Regarding the four guys you quoted.

Colin Patterson, whom you attributed that quote to in 2001, died in 1998. He wasn't overtly religious from what I can tell, and he did say this too.

"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context."

Lee Spetner was a Jewish Creationist, and has written things in his books that bring about obvious questions about his intentions. Things like ...

"...I met the evolutionary theory in a serious way, and I found it hard to believe. It clashed not only with my religious views, but also with my intuition about how the information in living organisms could have developed."

Michael Denton identifies as agnostic, not atheist (a huge distincition by the way), but his opinions on fine tuning makes it pretty clear he believes in at the very least a deistic entity.

Berlinski is about the closest thing you'll find to a true agnostic ID proponent, though that distinction is tenuous as he doesn't actually outright support ID, and he too has said things that indicate he adheres to some kind of religious belief, namely on objective morality grounds. He also collaborated with Ann Coulter for her book on science and evolution. So that's interesting.

The point here isn't just to quibble on the details on these guys. The point is that when trying to find the most scientifically literate of dissenters to Darwinian evolution, you're always left picking from guys with obvious religious backgrounds and/or guys that make a career out of cherry picking certain things they don't like about evolution while avoiding the vast amounts of solid, non controversial facets of D.E. that make it so widely accepted within the actual scientific community.

Science is an approach to understanding that emphasizes careful observation, a belief that patterns and correlation reflect organizing principles, and that these principles should be the foundation for models that explain and ideally predict observations made beyond the boundaries within which the initial observations were made and the organizing principles identified.

I started with this irritatingly pedantic preamble because I think it helps frame my commentary on the post and the comments that have followed.

1. Evolution by natural selection is disputable, all ideas are disputable. I am not an expert in evolutionary biology, so I cannot speak in detail to concerns with the theory of evolution by natural selection, but the times that I have looked into the refutations of evolution, I have not been persuaded. Again, I make no claims to a comprehensive investigation our deep knowledge, but I remain unconvinced. Keep in mind this is not so surprising; the theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive, not predictive, and sufficiently general that it is very difficult to falsify.
2. Evolution by natural selection attempts to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life – whereby I mean all living creatures, when I speak of life. If one requires humans to be separate from the evolution of other creatures, to require the mechanics of the formation of the human species to be distinct from other species, then yes, evolution by natural selection does conflict with some religious beliefs.
3. A belief in evolution by natural selection presents no conflict with a belief in God or any other higher power. I do believe that patterns in observations present constraints on what can be called true or verified – what I have called a belief in science – does place limits on God. Such a God would have created a universe knowable by the intellect imbued upon us by said Being.
4. Ignorance makes a poor foundation for a scientific theory. A failure to conceive of how an unguided search – evolution by natural selection – can lead to remarkable levels of self-assembled order does not provide the basis for a scientific theory. The concept of emergence – ‘simple’ building block interacting through known forces leading to unpredictable structures and properties – is a common place occurrence for non-living matter as well. In many such systems, the limits of our ability can be attributed to technical limitations. We can write out the equation that would predict the behavior, but we do not know how to solve it. This concept can be applied to living systems as well.

Now for an aside. I am a Ph.D. chemist, though by no means a biochemist. I state this just to reflect my bias. The most important discovery of the second half of the 20th century is the identification of the biomolecular machinery that executes evolution by natural selection. It is the partial mastery of this machinery that gives up the ability to hijack the inner workings of simple living creatures like e. coli for the benefit of human health and intellectual curiosity.

"reducing human suffering IS the basis for relative morality. By that I mean that as people we ought to derive our feelings on what's right and wrong by whether an action or idea promotes well being or increases suffering."

The whole premise of moral relativity is that there is no true right or wrong, only what each society decides for themselves to promote their goals. There for, you have no basis for saying what others ought to do. That you personally think humanity should promote well being or reduce suffering is just your own subjective opinion which moral relativity expressly teaches has no inherent value to anyone else. Further, what constitutes "well being" is entirely subjective and also something that each person will have their own personal views about. Same goes for what measures are appropriate means of promoting well being.

If a society decides that elimating those who don't subscribe to their religion promotes well being, and beheading non-believers is an effective way to achieve this, moral relativity does not and can not say that this is wrong. So your saying that we should oppose (how?) ISIS' barbaric acts has no basis in moral relativity.

"Point to a remote Amazonian tribe that views violence against women as a normal part of their culture, and it will be a clear example that morality can and does evolve differently in certain populations. In mainstream morality, what you and I are talking about, civilized society has much common ground. However, the existence of alternate moral codes among isolated or extreme societies is direct evidence that absolute morality is pure illusion."

Again, that people have different beliefs does not mean that there isn't a divine morality, just as the fact that people have disagreed about whether the Earth is the center of the universe doesn't mean there isn't an ultimate truth of the matter.

Let's not equate habit-forming forces with intelligence. And let's not confuse personality with illusion. Every argument against God convinces me more there is a God. The amount of intelligence needed to muster up a good agnostic/atheistic argument - or an argument on morality or ethics,  this capacity doesn't originate from man, created by impersonal, blind forces. It doesn't come randomly from unintellig-able forces. Man either points to God, or man is God: the intelligent being that shapes and gives meaning to the Universe. So, the logic that I use to live my life moves me to being a proponent of ID. And I stay for the science. A lot of us appreciate Discovery.org because they affirm this simple but powerful observation.