1) If evolution is part of the "design" then so be it. I have no philosophical problem with it. Most "scientists", on the other hand, must believe it is all natural processes in order to continue subjecting it to study. It is fine with me if that's what keeps you going. The only problem I have is when you state with certainty that everything is subject to natural laws. And in order to prove that you overstate what you know and present as fact things that only conjecture, best guesses or subject to interpretation.
2) The religious text of your choice says nothing in this world is perfect.
3) I'm sorry, but they haven't. Nothing I've seen is very impressive. But many scientists seem too ready to jump to conclusions because they are the ones who fear there might be limits.
Just count what no scientist on this thread could answer or tried to sidestep or semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids, a "new species" that is not new, why it is valid to call a group of fossils "whales" because the ears and teeth are similar when the bodies are drastically different, why "When a development is really independent it shows in the DNA" does not assume the conclusion it is supposed to prove, why creation implies there should not be a "defective" GLO gene ("Defective" is an opinion, not a physical property. You are aware that some genes have multiple purposes? If you look for a gene which correlates with one property, that does not mean it does not also correlate with another property you were not looking for. And even if not, you still have to assume the conclusion absent observation of the actual or analogous occurence. The logic is rather simple.)
No, it is you who simply scoff and dismiss and move on, refusing to consider other views.