The article's last few paragraphs are about the contrast between religious and naturalistic mindsets. The only quibbles and arguments by assertion of yours that are relevant to those paragraphs are numbers 8, 9, and 10.

8 just asserts the intelligent design that's implied by the religious mindset, which contradicts naturalism. 9 overlooks this part of the article, which again you seem to have missed:

"However arrogant certain scientists and engineers may be as individuals, secular theorists and technicians — as professionals — regard their explanations as provisional or are pragmatic about their innovations."

10 is just ad hominem and a mere argument by assertion.

What makes many of your points arguments by assertion isn't that they contradict what I say. It's that they're just assertions, with no supporting evidence or reasoning. For example, you say there's no problem of evil. Tell that to the history of apologetics. You imply that there's no such thing as good or evil. Tell that to the history of moral discourse. The more extraordinary the claim, the more powerful and extensive its rational support had better be.