Just a note on your first sentence here as I don't have enough time to address your second or subsequent ones.
I think it is important to state that evolution is not the product of luck (ie "a lot of lucky things happened and here I stand") but of selection for fitness. So if a population is well adapted and produces a lot of offspring, it will likely be able to out-compete others who are less well adapted and produce fewer offspring, all things being equal. The well adapted population aren't lucky, per se, they are simply fitter. It is expected that they will be more successful. There is still room for chance and luck, but usually the other way round, that is, a fitter population could, by chance, be wiped out by a cataclysm, and then the less fit population would likely survive. But this effect of chance is contrary to the effect of evolutionary processes.
Secondly, I think it is a big leap to go from "evolution operates without morals" to "people who believe evolution is true operate without morals". If I were to accuse someone who believed in Satan of being without moral fibre purely because they believed in Satan's existence, it would be rightly viewed as a non-sequitur. I think the relationship between evolution and "evolutionists" is effectively the same.