Here's the one truth about nature (and thus the universe) that seems very hard to grasp, for a variety of religious people, conspiracy nuts, but even many advocates of science and rationality: nature is indifferent. It's not harsh, or violent, or nice, or lucky, or trying anything, or going anywhere - it simply is.Thoughts, arguments, and opinions.
One of the other ideas one needs to understand is that an observer is limited by his viewpoint and capabilities; so any attempt we make at explaining or even understanding the universe often comes with models that obviously need to be understandable by humans via a variety of user interfaces (-> math); and which often are limited in scope to the area they were looked at.
A very good example of that is classic mechanic laws, which are brilliant in explaining to a very high accuracy what we see in everyday life; but completely fail to work on very large or very small scales - that doesn't mean the model is wrong, that simply means there are limits to it.
While there might be a model that encompasses all three scales, it would probably make it very hard to work on the one scale you're currently interested in, and thus needlessly overcomplicate things. When trying to predict a behavior (which ultimately is the test of your theory), or fix a problem, it's a waste of resources and time to solve that problem on a scale no one is concerned by.
Thirdly, while we like categories and labels and try to fit the natural world into boxes we can understand & sort; nature really isn't all that easy to fit into discrete categories - that however is a problem due to how we think, and how we order our toughts, not an attempt of nature to escape explanation.
Our lack of understanding does not imply there's a will opposing us, do not make the error of insinuating an unnecessary agent where it is not required, especially not when your attempts to comprehend certain things already fail on models that are second nature to a large number of people specialized in a field you know next to nothing about.
There's actually very little to suggest that all laws are in place already, however the more we understand & correct our science, the more we understand why, how & where previous models had their limits. That suggests that our understanding of natural laws needs to catch up, long before we start insinuating that the laws are changing or even simply appearing as we get closer to defining them. And let's not forget that our "laws" are simply models - the universe doesn't follow them, it's simply how we explain how a part of nature works under a defined set of conditions, and how we attempt to predict an outcome to experiments.
A ton of those laws are actually bad, and known to be bad, yet are good enough to lead to technological implementations. "Close enough" is how we've been playing it for the past few hundred years
Lastly - at least for this post - let's not forget three key concepts:
- A hypothesis isn't some random idea someone had one while sitting on the porcelain throne (well, rarely at least). It's the hardest and most tested concept we know in science. The one step after the hypothesis is "fact", and those make for very dull experiments.
- Proof in science is a very different concept than proof in law. Proof in law required something to be sufficiently plausible; proof in science requires logical certainty within the parameters. Once something is proven (and the proof is correct), it won't change anymore, ever. Sure, later on it might be shown that under other parameters it doesn't apply, or that the proof was incorrect; but scientific proof is a very final concept within the parameters where it is valid.
- Lastly, Science is wrong and inaccurate Older scientific concepts & theories being overturned or improved is not a weakness, it's how science is done. Science is not a thing, it's a verb, and it's best understood as the activity of "continually trying to improve our understanding of the natural world".