I think this is one of the best posts I've ever read from you. It lays out a pretty good possible avenue for ID, but it still contains a few errors and misconceptions.
Natural selection is an undirected process but order can be hidden within chaos.
Natural selection is considered undirected, in that there isn't a pre-determined goal in mind. However, if you mean undirected to be random or "chaotic" then that's wrong. Natural selection, as the name itslef implies, is selection, meaning the survival of an organism isn't random, it's directly based on it's ability to survive in the environment and compete with the other organisms in that environment. It's a very non-random process with predictive capabilities.
1. Molecular machinery inside of the cell. An example would be irreducibly complex systems.
In the other thread, it's been shown that irreducibly complex systems can evolve, and in fact, are predicted by current evolutionary theory, thus IC systems are not evidence for or against an intelligent designer.
2. Patterns of appearance of organisms in the fossil record.
I'm not sure what you mean here. The patterns we see are part of evolutionary theory and have not only been taken into account, but are some of the reasons current evolutionary theory was developed.
3. The fine-tuned physics of the universe. Robin Collins is an expert in this.
This is probably the best avenue for ID proponents to focus on. The anthropic principle is a hot topic in physics and other science circles, but ID needs to make sure it's not jumping to conclusions and in fact does some actual scientific work for their views to be taken seriously.
4. The fine-tuning of our terrestrial environment and our solar system along with the specific "galactic habitable zone" in our galaxy which is also the right type of galaxy that supports life.
Taking your point in number three as a given, then the sheer number of galaxies and planets within them makes this one inevitable. It's not really a good argument for a designer, as the lack of habitable planets, the ones that have absolutley no chance to support life could then be an argument against a designer, and there are a lot more of those types of bodies in the universe than life supporting ones (currently at precisely one known example).
5. The complex specified information within DNA providing specific functions that helps build organisms. Abiogenesis models typically do not attempt to explain the origin of this information. They also don't account for other crucial details.
People who use information as a proff of a designer usually have no idea what information theory says, or what information itself is. There is absolutely nothing that prevents information from arising naturally and increasing in complexity through a small series of steps.
The trend for ID is up and the gaps in secular evolution are growing. I think we will win.
Well, when you start at nothing (ID isn't an old idea) you have no where to go but up. And by the way, the gaos in evolution are getting smaller and farther apart, you're just not accepting the newer discoveries and explanations.
™ Version 4.2