Thank you for your very matter of factly answer. The laws in question are most definitely a solid common ground on which we should be able to build.
Since you might have read my answer to Een's first, you probably know already that my concern was however somewhat different (and deceivingly formulated I fear) in my first contribution. Nevertheless your answer was not plain waste of time since it allows me to retune my questioning.
You wrote: "The sort of laws I think of when I use the term 'natural laws' are the laws of physics, chemistry and biology"
The examples you gave are very relevant and help understanding the absolute involved in the predictions based on their prescriptions (planets, gases...)
My concern is that the examples all happen to come from the physics area. Do think that the term "law" could rightfully be applied in the context of other sciences, even biology as you suggest it may.
As for myself, I find it very difficult. The difficulty may rest upon my faulty knowledge of biology, although, I would rather assume that it comes from a deeper problem, namely the less strictly pre-determined character of reactions in the biological field, the somewhat functional and aim-oriented features of organic processes.
A too hasty generalisation of the use of the term "law" to cover all form of scientific knowledge risks to induce debates that should lack of substance for all knowledge, beit scientific, does not imply such a degree of mecanical necessity as the newtonians laws.
This was more accurately formulated my concerns when I asked Een and you to precise what you meant by laws and the extent of the field where it is relevant to make use of the term law.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]