Interesting...

You ask questions as if to prove a point, even though your questions do have answers outside of your reckoning.

I'm on my phone so excuse my not pasting your paragraphs but I'll try to post re question accurately.

"Where does our morality come from?"
From our parents, our teachers, self reflection, education , societal norms, millenia of philosophical and ethical debate, established codes of law , etc. The holy books of the different religions do little to influence our morality, accept to strengthen or adjust compatable beliefs on morality(ex: socially liberal vs. socially conservative Christians, very different starting points on what they believe is moral, yet they both pray to the same god and read the same holy book) Talk to an anthropologist or a sociologist, you'd be amazed at what they know about moral zeitgeists throughout history.

"[different religions... worth defending]?"
In this context, nope. All of the religions assert no scientific theory, they make testable proclamations about nature and reality. What can be investigated or tested will stand on it's own apart from the religious books declared authority. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all hold onto Genesis as the basic story of creation so you didn't even mention a religion that asserts a different origins story.

Just to say this outright: No, from a scientific perspective, they are testable myths and legends, not theories.

"Also a theory. With limited evidence."
At what point is evidence not limited? The fact is that all of the the evidence discovered, analyzed and catalogued up-to-date fits within evolutionary theory and no evidence contradicts evolution . The only science AIG and other defenders of fairy tales present are arguments again a select few aspects of evolution. In other words, the only defense, outside of the holy book, for creation or intelligent design that has ever been presented has been nothing but attacks on evolution, not a single presentation of evidence in support of creation that refutes evolution in any way.

I can't quote the rest of your last paragraph, so I'll just debate it outright.

Your explaination of "scientific 'law'" is actually an explanation for scientific theory. In science, a 'theory' is an explanation of all of the facts with regards to a specific category. In science, a 'law' is something that is universal, meaning it doesn't matter where or when something is or happened, the law holds true. A law does not attempt to explain WHY it is the way it is, only that that is the way it is. For example: Gravity. The law of gravity is that gravity is universal for everything in the universe, the theory of gravity is an attempt to explain gravity based on all of the data.

Evolution is not, and will never be, a 'law' because not everything is life, or alive, or whatever. Evolution simply describes the way in which biological life on earth survives and changes. It doesn't even go as far as explain how life started. And all the evidence so far matches evolutionary theory.

Summary: law = universe spanning rule of reality, theory = explanation of all relevant evidence.

Science and religion can only coexist if religion stops making blind assertions about testable reality and sticks to the non scientific philosophies, or religion begins to mold itself around discovered evidence, like science. Science won't get you to universal truths about everything, but it does not deny evidence and reasoned inquiry simply on the grounds that it contradicts doctrine.