"Would Hugh Ross's argument that the physical constants of the universe give the appearance of having been fine-tuned to permit the existence of life count as positive evidence?"
Yes it would, but you should know that this argument did not originate with Ross. It is part of the anthropic principle, which was first proposed a couple of decades ago by non-creationist cosmologists. They were not arguing that the universe was designed by an intelligent being, but rather that the universe is known to exist only because there are intelligent beings around to observe it. As such, the "fine-tuned" nature of the constants is coincidental rather than purposeful. These same cosmologists did not reject evolution.
As such, the concept that the universe is "fine-tuned for life" can also be accounted for by evolution; by itself it does not support creation any better.
Kevin L. O'Brien