Steve Shaw
And don't dwell for too long on the word "laws." It is a problem.

"laws of science" is in the thread title. "Laws" has been used several times by various people. It IS a problem. That is the problem I am tryng to address.

In his OP, Joe seems to want it three ways He says "I'm convinced that everything in life follows logical rules" but then "I think the design is intrinsic." but then again "The Rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. Nobody made the Rules. The Rules simply describe the way things work. ". So the "rules" are something external that life (and presumably all of the material universe) follow, they are "intrinsic" i.e. part of nature itself or descriptive i.e. a human construct, a model used as long as it gives reliable predictions.

You yourself, Steve say I prefer "laws of nature" to "laws of science." suggesting that you favour the external laws approach over the human, descriptive definition. Likewise you say I don't mind "the laws of nature that scientific endeavour has discovered." implying that the laws have some sort of independant existence.

Do Newton's Laws instruct apples and planets how to behave or simply describe what they do?