LOL. You’re just cargo culting philosophy now, with a thin veneer of sciencey-sounding jargon.
1) An axiom is not an article of faith, it’s something on which we build a theory. Euclid’s axioms are invalid in quite a few situations and nobody loses any sleep about it.
2) The opposite of “the laws of physics never change” is “the laws of Physics can change”, not “god did it”. People would be very interested if you proved that Physics is not invariant with respect to time, because it would mean that energy is not conserved and it would open massive possibilities from a theoretical point of view. That would be much more impactful than most Nobel prizes in the last 60-odd years.
3) There is plenty of “non-differentiable physical behaviour” with invariant laws of Physics. No need for any creator.
> There’s a middle ground of accepting the possibility of differentiable but non-constant mechanisms that should technically be owned by the evolutionists
You fail to even allude to what this middle ground would be. Science itself would be fine with the time invariant being violated. A lot of laws we now know would be wrong, but science itself would not have any more problem than when we realised that the Galilean transformation of velocities was not actually true.
Also, “differentiable but non-constant mechanisms” is just meaningless babble.
> but this is a rarely embraced territory
For a simple reason: it is a straw man and nobody actually believes what you are attacking (mostly because it is meaningless).
> you get neither the warm fuzzies of belief in a God who specially designed you, nor the cool satisfaction of a belief in making observations about the universe now and scaling/time-inverting them to speak confidently about the distant past and future.
You seem to be assuming that everyone shares your philosophical system, just swapping “science” for “god”. It is not the case. We do not need warm fuzzies or cool satisfaction. And we do not get any particular pleasure from the fact that any god that is not simply a hands-off creator is exceedingly implausible.
You believe in whatever you tant to, and it’s fine. Do not assume that we are like you are.