Why do people deny evolution?

I'm not familiar with a few things on your list but there are more than enough known valid ones on it that even the orthodox evolution scientists are starting to question all the assumptions in evolution.

conventional scientific evolutionists are still not ready to abandon the premise that it's 'all natural', they are just looking for a better narrative, a 'Third Way' as they call it.

Here’s the steel-hard fact they most want to avoid:

The evolutionary explanation of life cannot stand up to NASA-style engineering scrutiny. If you doubt this, please join me in testing it. Hand pick your Darwin sympathizers from the most esteemed places. It doesn’t matter who they are, because all the pomp and prestige of the academic world is powerless to change hard facts. All claims of Darwin having discovered the only scientifically valid explanation of life get torn to tiny bits when you put them in the grinder.

The response to this challenge is sure to be either silence or protest. There won’t be a nerdy evolutionary biologist who marches up to the chalkboard and does the math that saves the theory. The math has been done; the theory undone. Nor will there be a lab test that shows natural selection to be a worker of wonders. We’ve been there. Too many tests to count, and the blind watchmaker never showed up.

The protest will be familiar, organized around the usual defensive themes. Different sciences work differently! — they’ll say. It isn’t reasonable to hold a historical science to engineering standards! — they’ll say. No practicing evolutionary biologist would accept your proposal as valid! — they’ll say.

Let them speak. Then remind them that the difference is simply one of seriousness. When we really need to know that something will work, tested-and-approved certainty has always been the standard. Evolutionists ignore that standard because they can. Storytelling works for them because they’re all telling stories together. Their grand stories are all wrong, but as long as no one is dying in orbit, most people are content to let them carry on.

Axe is on the record arguing that problems with evolution are evidence for intelligent design, insofar as if the theory of evolution cannot explain some data it means that there can somehow be no naturalistic explanation at all. In other words, Axe seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would have to be correct — which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to begin with, and is thus not even in the running.

His actual expertise in the fields relevant to assessing evolutionary explanations has also been questioned

Axe seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would have to be correct

So what is your 'Third Way'? Or do you hang with the classical Darwinists.

I'm not familiar with a few things on your list but there are more than enough known valid ones on it that even the orthodox evolution scientists are starting to question all the assumptions in evolution.

ALL of the items on his list have been sufficiently debunked for all but the Creationist denilist mind.