The beginning argument is bullshit. Just because it is an improbability of something happening due to "random chance" doesn't mean that's not the reason. The appeal of the intelligent design argument is a warping of the scientific usage of "vernacular" terms. e.g., a scientific theory doesn't mean "a hunch" or "a guess," but most people think that's what it means, therefore people who support design can use this to call things like evolution into question.

With your five-step argument, you begged the question between 3 and L. That is to say, you took an assumption as fact without validating it at all. It's an argumentative fallacy and your argument is invalid because of it.

Crazy Hades's tornado analogy is stupid, though. I'd like to know more about these "incorruptibles," because I've never heard of this. The Shroud of Turin is also curious, but I'm betting that's because the Church won't allow anybody to analyze it.