You have the right to perceive it as you wish.
"the second question doesn't appear to be a scientific question."
Maybe you're missing the point. Lets take 'splitting the atom' for example. Science found it could split the atom - the question then became what could be done with that information.
"As for the first question, isn't evolution theory in fact an attempt to understand what are the natural laws that underlie the development of life?"
It is an attempt, yes. Whether it is deemed a good and honest attempt is a matter of opinion.
"Surely you're not suggesting that there are no natural laws underlying the origin and development of life, are you?"
My belief is that God created pretty much as scripture states (although probably not in 6 earth days). He has set natural laws in place which keep life going. (Even the bonding of protons and electrons into atoms is important to sustaining life.)
If you prefer to believe that life evolved from non-life, that is completely up to you. I do not.
On the other hand, suppose you believed that no harm would come to you if you grabbed a metal fork with your bare right hand and pushed it into a live electrical outlet while lying naked in a puddle of water on a concrete floor? Now there's a belief that could get you into some trouble! Or suppose you believed that no harm would come to you if you leapt off the top of the Sears Tower without a parachute or a bunjee cord or some other life-saving device? Again, a belief capable of resulting in unfortunate consequences.
The fact is, people of sound mind who are inclined to believe the Biblical account of creation and to reject the theory of evolution, almost never reject Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Newton's theory of gravitation (if they do, they rarely live to tell others about it). And note that these two theories are only approximations to truth, just as evolution theory is still only an approximation to truth.
MEGoody, you questioned whether evolution theory was a "good and honest attempt" to understand the natural laws that underlie the development of life. Surely you know that thousands of very smart, very well-educated people have spent their lives attempting to understand how life began and developed, and almost all of them have concluded that some version of evolution theory best accounts for the evidence that they've so far encountered. It seems to me to be deeply misguided (and almost paranoiac) to suggest that all (or even a small percentage) of these people are somehow engaged in an enterprise which is a sham, an enterprise not concerned with finding out what's true but rather with pushing an ideological agenda of some sort. I'm not saying that that's your view, but that's the impression I'm getting of your view.
It has for a long time been clear to me that views on non-scientific matters are rarely changed by evidence and argument. At some stage in its development, the brain settles into a comfort zone with some memetic operating system and, from then on, what counts as evidence is determined by the parameters of that operating system. Try to imagine changing the world-view of an islamic extremist, for example. Having structured his brain using bits and pieces of the koran, he's made himself immune to evidence and arguments which might, under more favorable circumstances, have indicated to him that he's mistaken.
Fortunately, most scientists aren't like that. It's truth that they're most interested in, and they follow the evidence wherever it leads, attempting to provide reasonable arguments as they go. Scientific investigation is one of the noblest of endeavors that our meager little existence affords us. We'll soon be gone, as will all traces of our having been, but the effort that will have been made to understand who and what we are will have been a worthy use of our moment of sunlight.
Best regards ...