[BelegStrongbow]

And for at least one good reason: we can elucidate laws of physics. Does this say that the set of laws we observe to operate are the only possible set and that the universe must necessarily have been?

I think not, thus Dawkins draws a distinction where there is only difference in appearance: Mount Rushmore's etching is the result of the action caused by physical properties imposed, which could have been otherwise.

[snarks_when_bored]

I'm not quite sure I take your point. Care to elaborate?

[RightWhale]

we can elucidate laws of physics

I wouldn't know if that necessarily requires design, but it does require some characteristics remain constant. That could be taken as a corollary of design.

[bvw]

Evidently the "laws of physics" as understood by Dawkins stop far short of including statiscal physics.