Fine tuning and darwin

I have recently been studying, somewhat superficially, the argument from design, which says that God or a supremely intelligent being has instituted a chain of events that have caused life to exist. This argument is what is presenting much contention between scientist and theologies, especially those scientist that support the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution can be summarized into the following form.
1. Genetic mutations happen randomly in species
2. Those mutation help the species achieve an advantage (natural selection)
3. These mutations become beneficial traits and are passed down to the offspring of the species
4. The cycle continues and the species evolves and changes over time.
Notwithstanding the evolutionary proof, the argument of creation or design seems to cause a serious logical problem for the theological community. The main reason for this is if evolution is true, then the doctrine of the creation as taught in mainstream Christianity is false.
Along with the never-ending debate between the Darwinist and creationist, there has evolved an argument called “Fine tuning” (Stephen T. Davis). This argument is as follows.
1.In order for life to exist an exact value is needed for almost innumerable laws and constants (premise)
2. Life exists (premise)
3. Therefore the planet and universe we live in possess these constant and values in the perfect degree for life (1,2)
4. It is extremely improbable that all of these laws and constants come together in way that allows life, very near impossible (premise)
5. Therefore it is probable that there was a designer that brought these laws and constants into agreement allowing life (3,4)
This argument obviously points to the logical idea that it would seem more probable that the events that our world and the universe have experienced in order to exhibit intelligent life would have been set in motion by a creator. I have noticed much criticism of the argument saying that it holds only metaphysical probability, hypothetical proclivities, and ignores evidence.
Now, I would like to take the argument and re-write it to improve the absoluteness of this argument. (As follows)
1. In order for life to exist an exact value is needed for almost innumerable laws and constants. (premise)

2. Life exists. (premise)

3.Therefore the planet and universe we live in possess these constant and values in the perfect degree for life. (1,2)

4. Such constants and values require organization and design to exhibit a perfect degree required for life. (Premise)

5. Therefore it is necessary that there was a designer who brought these laws and constants into perfect agreement to allow life. (3,4)

I have presented this argument to some of my collages and they disagree with premise 4. They claim that we have no reason to believe a creator created this world or that this world would need design in order to exhibit organization. I don’t concur with their tempestuous and unavailing claims to thwart this argument. Thus, I have provided the following argument to support the previous.
1. X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2.Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
3. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Let us, for the sake of discussion, use premise 1,2 from this version of the teleological argument to support premise 4. Thus, by those two premises it would seem that a designer or creator would be required to cause /design this “chain of events” that are required for life.

It seems almost impossible to reject the idea of design. If something is to function correctly in is own existence it must exhibit design and purpose. This idea is concurrent with human knowledge, because all of human existence has depended up specialization and design. This is summed up in this quote,
“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?” (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

Thank you,
John