In science the whole idea of "laws" or "natural laws" is very 19th Century. Newtons laws of motion have been superceded by Einsteins Theory of Relativity. You can confirm the truth of Einsteins theory over Newton's laws every time you use a GPS because the GPS clocks must be adjusted for relativity affects. (See http://www.metaresea...-relativity.asp for details)
Similary Boyle's Gas Laws have been replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Kinetic theory gives a more accurate result than the Gas Law. (See http://en.wikipedia....and_ideal_gases for details). Mendel's Laws on inheriitance have been replaced by Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics.
In the 19th Century, matter and energy were thought to be distinct - resulting in the Law of Conservation of Mass. This "Law" was dramatically violated at Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and every day now in hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world.
The famous 19th Century physicist Clerk Maxwell proposed his "demon" as a thought experiment as to how the Laws of Thermodynamics might be violated. Scientific interest in this idea persists and recent experiments have come close to violating the thermodynamic "laws". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon for details).
The 20th Century physicist Fred Hoyle was an atheist and pro Darwin, despite being frequently quoted (usually out of context) by Creationist sites. His reputation and ability was established by his Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis - which successfully explained the abundance of elements in various kinds of stars. Hoyle was the author of the term "Big Bang". He supported an elegant alternative called the Steady State Theory. In order to account for the observed expansion of the Universe, Hoyle postulated the continual creation of matter in space. The fact that this might violate some 19th century "law" certainly didn't bother him. Big Bang has only triumphed over Steady State because of careful statistical analysis of the density of galaxies at varying cosmologiical distances.
The bottom line is that I don't think citing some 19th century "laws" which were only derived empirically can in any prove (or disprove) the existence of God. That is a question that I don't think science will ever resolve. All other issues - including the origin of the RNA transcription process and why it moves so incredibly slowly are open season.
As an atheist, I would question the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I admire his wisdom, exemplified in Mark 12 : 17
Yet to claim that there MUST be a naturalistic explanation when there is not the evidence for such is not logical. It is also arguing from the future as it is superseding the current evidence which defy the naturalist's claims, and then claiming that some kind of evidence for naturalism MUST be real. This can be observed each and every time Dawkins states, "science is working on it".... though it really should be 'naturalistic scientists are working on it', since science is not a thing, and stating as such is declaring "Science" is at odds with Religion.
Yes to claim "God did it" is also not logical, however as I stated the things I have based my claim on ARE indeed backed up my (actual) empirical experimentation (unlike evolution since it is merely assumed as an explanation, not experimentally demonstrated). Again I say that in order to defy my claim you would need to defy the laws / prerogatives of reality which I stated. Chirality is not a law I believe, yet it is a physical property inherent with a chemical compound (essentially it is asymmetry), yet the things evolution claims runs against this.... I ask you, how does one "disprove" asymmetry? The observed prerogatives of reality, ie- how the world works experimentally, I believe is a good foundation for any claim.