You are in incredible tool.
You seem to be confusing two separate definitions of the word law. To quote the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
noun 1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties. 2 such rules as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession. 3 statute law and the common law. 4 a statement of fact to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. 5 a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport. 6 something having binding force or effect: his word was law. 7 (the law) informal the police."
So you see, 'law' as in a system of justice is a completely separate thing to the word 'law' as in 'an inverse-square law'. In the English language we call these words 'homonyms'.
Everything in mathematics is defined by human beings.
Wet and hot are adjectives we invented to describe water and fire, not the other way around.
Water has always froze and boiled when it does today, since water molecules, like everything else, are subject to the laws of electromagnetism, which do not change.
There is no such thing as 'a gradual'. Gradually changing functions become constant as the variable approaches the number at which the gradual equates the given constant, mathematically speaking, i.e. the limit of the function 1/x approaches 1 as x approaches 1.
Evolutionists are scientists. Evolution is subject to a number of laws, such as the laws of biology and physics. No silicon based lifeform will evolve on this planet because the physical conditions makes complex silicon molecules unstable. Specific codons in a DNA sequence which always correspond to the same amino acids, etc..