ANSWER: No, the existence of 'natural or Physical "laws" does not require a "Lawgiver". If you wish to read how I developed this, then read on. This is about 2 pages:
The WTS stated: The existence of 'Laws' in nature implies that there is a 'Lawgiver', and uses this as one of the several reasons to refute evolution; that is evolution that would eliminate the need for a Creator, and intelligent designer.
Definition of Law: My Webster's "New World Dictionary" Second College Edition, gives 13 definitions of 'Law'. The basic "root" meaning is from an Old English word, "lagu", and says that it is: "Something laid down or settled."
LAWS: It is true that 'laws' as we understand them, are rules of conducts created by intelligent design, such as governing our conduct at traffic signals. We stop at "red" lights because the protocol is for safety, and disobedience means we greatly risk the chances of property damage and injury or death. This 'risk' which could hurt our fellow human also has "Moral" implications, and this is the underlying basis for enacting such laws. But ...
These 'Laws' are possible to evade without harm or any moral consequence. Late at night, when no other auto is around, we can run a 'red' light, and not cause harm. The 'Law' is not enforced by blind brute force, but by intelligent authority. Even if we cause an accident, the enforcement of the 'Law' is not done by the accident, for the while the accident itself is evidence that possibly the "law" was disobeyed, such disobedience is not necessarily going to cause an accident. Also, the non-guilty party did not break any law, but was injured nonetheless. The accident is "not" of itself an act of enforcement, but rather a potential consequence due to the high risk - and a consequence that can hurt anyone regardless of whether they caused the accident or broke the law.
[b[Enforcement: The enforcement by duly constituted authority does not come out and force us into an accident to prove a point that disobedience is wrong. Rather, enforcement is by some other punatitve act, such as a fine, community service, additional training, or even revocation of driver license and withdrawl of our driving privelege. Such enforcement is at the discretion of a Judge after he/she considers the evidence and all circumstances, our driving record, and our attitude. Also, the injured party can sue us in civil court for additinal monetary damages for breaking the law and causing the accident. Law in this sense is a moral matter reflecting "intelligent design" and purpose to settle moral issues.
Law in Science: When Science uses the term "Law", our minds make an immediate connection with our "legal" system and law enforcement. But, like the word "Theory", the word "Law", in this scientific sense, gets misused by lay persons. In Science, a law is not about moral or safety issues, those these can be involved. The premise of "Law" in Science, however, is about the very root meaning of "lagu", using the term to express in scientific terms that a known physical constant is "Something laid down or settled."
Example: Gravity is said to be both 'Law' and 'Theory.' That is, our understanding of Gravity is theoretical, because we do not fully understand the force of gravity, science is not sure exactly what makes it work, but develops "Theory" to make some kind of explanation. Such 'Theory' is always subject to improvement as our understanding and knowledge increases.
But, our observation, measurement, predictions, tests, and reproducible events are based on gravitational 'law' ... that is, it is settled and laid down in science as to what gravity will do! And this will never change. It is a fixed constant, always predictable, and in this sense acts as a things settled.
Enforcement of Natural, Physical Laws: Because Natrual or Physical 'Laws' have consequences, does not have to mean that there is a 'Lawgiver' who made an intelligent design of these 'Laws.'
Example: If I stand on top of the Sears Tower, and a powerful wind gust blows me off of the roof, I will fall to my death. Yet, I did nothing morally worng to deserve such. I broke no laws. God did not prohibit my standing on top of a tall building, nor did God warn me that if I did I would be blown off of the roof to my death.
Also, my family cannot sue God in civil court because his 'wind' blew me off of the Sears roof top and killed me because of his gravitational law. This would make God morally culpable of murder were his Laws to conflict in such ways that caused us harm. The 'Law' of Gravity, that is: the settled and laid down aspect of Gravity, always performing as it is observed to do, means that the circumstance of falling from the Sears Tower 'will' mean my death.
Yet, no court in heaven or earth will cite me or sanction me with a penalty for standing on the roof of the Sears Tower. God will not then say that I made a bad moral choice and suffered the consequences of disobeying his intelligent design: as lawgiver. And as I mentioned above, if God designed these laws, such that his 'wind' unexpectedly blew me off of the Sears Tower to my death, he is the one who becomes morally culpable. The consequence of dying from a fall due to gravity is simply a physical event resulting from a physical constant.
What if God gave Gravity as a Law? If Gravity were such a Divine "LAW" then God would (or should) have done several other things, such as warning us of its inherent safety problems, and would have established rules to help us comply with his Gravitational Law. And if we violated these rules, even if we did not suffer 'saftety' consequences of being injured, such as falling, God would still have a basis to judge us as violators of his Gravitational Law. But, nowhere in the word of God does he address gravity, or mention it in any of his Laws.
What then is Scientific Law - if not by Intelligent Design?: Scientific "LAW" is always in the context of what "Humans versed in science "determine" as a things settled or laid down. That is "Human" scientists are the ones who determine, discuss, debate, and finally agree what is "Settled and Laid down" as scientific Absolutes, Axioms, Principles, and Physical Constants, or laws. Scientists did not intelligently design such "Constants", they merely agree on what they are and in this narrow sense call them "LAW."
Did God "Design", via his Intelligence, these Physical Constants or Laws?: He could have, but their existence does not mean he had to Intelligently Design them. He could have created the universe by simply using Physical Constants that would work, because they would function on their own naturally. Humans do this all the time with their creations. We invent things that work according to physical laws, but we did not have to create such Laws of Physical Constants.
Large material masses, such as Earth, would naturally have a gravitational force, and God merely took advantage of this in forming the planet, or selecting a planet where he could more easily make further progress in the evolution of life. The entire universe itself could have emerged into existence from Singularity, and God merely took the opportunity to use its Natural Laws to his purpose. But the phjysical laws would already be there.
Distinction: I hope the above distinction will be helpful in the discussion. Laws in the narrow scientific sense have a specific definition much like the word 'Theory.' And both words have been contextually misunderstood, and hence misused by non-scientific people who are searhcing to establish the basis for Intelligent Design in the universe.
I believe:[/b] ... that God is better found in our sentient, self-aware, and cognitive ability to think in the abstract, and feel and show 'love' which seems to be outside our natural and physical Laws. -- Amazing