On the physical evidence based on the ‘laws of nature’ that brought about the complexity

The genetics you gave as an example is not a law but a complex system of any kind, and even that itself can be understood in the process of natural selection, which until it developed, the strong were unable to pass on their strength to their offspring, so that reality forced creatures to develop a genetic system in order to survive, and so it was, without any planning.
You could argue that this is unlikely, but if you agree that the constraints of nature are a reason to select the more complex and better systems, there is no evidence here.

Genetics are not created by a process of natural selection. Law systems are not created by natural selection.

It is possible that the Big Bang is not unique in its kind and that in billions of galaxies no laws have evolved. The complexity of the laws does not mean that there is no chance that they will exist, but that the chance is remote. It is truly possible that out of the millions of "bangs", only our universe has these laws, and in others, living species did not survive due to the lack of laws.

I answered this in detail in my books God Plays Dice and also in the First Precept. First, even if universes are created, there is a mechanism that creates them, and it itself requires explanation. God could be an explanation for this. And beyond that, since we have not seen all the explosions that create universes with other sets of laws, this hypothesis has no basis, nor is it plausible because if we have not seen them, then they probably do not exist. It is always possible to explode theoretical possibilities and reject a theoretical conclusion. Every strange and rare event can always be explained by such a theory.

What creates them could be primordial matter.

I agree that the theory is baseless

Precursor matter creates nothing.

Is the wording problematic?! ”What they were created from is primeval matter”.
But I haven't had time to read the physico-theological evidence yet, so if it's explained I'll read it there.

You wrote: “Genetics is not created by a process of natural selection. Systems of laws are not created by natural selection”.
I didn't understand why, a creature whose emergence was without the possibility of passing on its strength to its offspring was less likely to survive, while a creature in which, during the course of experiments, a gene system was created that is inherited by the offspring, managed to establish its strength and pass it on.
Genetics is a mechanism, not a law, and a mechanism is something that can develop according to the evolutionary model.
In short, I don't understand what you wrote.

It doesn't matter. So biology or physics are not created by an evolutionary process. Genetics wouldn't have been possible anyway. We always assume a framework of laws behind the process, and the fundamental laws (as opposed to the mechanisms within them) have no evolutionary explanation.