@Patrick,
Yes, Hawking wrote a good book with many excellent illustrations, even though he has some strange ideas about God.
In some sense you seem to have a double standard for science and theology. The way science is supposed to work is we accept the current state of knowledge always aware that it not final and it can be improved upon and replaced. For theology you seem to take the stand that it cannot be right so it must be replaced, even though you cannot say how.
The beauty of science is that it is constantly looking for new answers. The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it has not basically changed since the time of Darwin and it is not looking for new answers because it is still defending the old ones.
For me theology also needs to look for new answers. Theology is about change, the Bible is about change, the Church is about change. Love is the answer, but who is to say that we fully understand God, humans, and love.
“Science” is caught up in the physical sciences, as if we solve the problem of how the universe functions, we will solve all of our human problems, which is manifestly false. This to me is the most serious problem with science, that it is so engrossed with its own problems , that it ignores the problems of the human world.
Theology or the Church is often caught up in spiritual problems, as if we understand how God functions, we will solve all of our human problems, which is also wrong. The most serious problem that the church has is that it seems to believe the lie about warfare between science and faith.
The fact is people need science and the church and philosophy too. Life is indeed messy, not because it is imperfect, but because it is complicated. It does not fall into the simple answers we would like, but the complex answers that make us think and work.
In ancient times philosophy governed science. The primary reason that they believed that the earth was the center of the universe was because Aristotle taught this. Science came into its own when it insisted that humans trust their senses and minds to see that the earth is not the center of the universe. Scientific proof is evidence based on observation, not on pure rationality.
The problem with your statement about apparent design id that it goes against the basis of science that knowledge must be based primarily on observation, not ideas. The problem with science today is that it seems captured by the idea that science is to be governed not by observation and experimentation, but by the idea that the universe is not rational, and has no structure and design, because it is material.
Now you say that design may be false, so what do we do? We look for collaborating evidence. You tried to present some in the form of entropy and quantum physics, which don’t really work. They are part of the design that makes the universe work and provides the basis for life and reality.
On the other hand symmetry is a basic form of design, both human and natural. We also see how “symmetry” is playing an important role in physics as we try to understand the quantum structure of our world.
Thus there is every evidence that symmetry is real, not just apparent, because it is backed up by observation, theory, and experimentation. Thus it seems to me we have every reason to think that rational design is real, and just not apparent.
If that does not agree with your world view, then maybe you need to do some more thinking as you say.