Evolution doesn't. It falls upwards. It does the opposite of what the rest of the universe does. It causes order and complexity. Unlike the burning log or the dominos or a growing crystal, the underlying principle is not explained or modeled easily with the known laws of physics.

You just mentioned crystallization, which is an example of a process that "falls upwards" as evolution does, generating complexity. So in fact, evolution does not behave contrary to the entire rest of the universe.

If anything, the fact that crystallization can produce apparent design in snowflakes (radial symmetry, hexagonal and fractal layout, no two alike) shows that there are processes that work against entropy without any supernatural element.

When people look at natural complexity and assume it cannot have occurred by itself, they are like someone who sees a snowflake under the microscope for the first time and proclaims it the work of a brilliant invisible sculptor because they don't know what crystallization is or how it works. Or in your case, that a "crystal force" from outside the universe causes it to happen.

You weren't. You could have, but I didn't expect you to have read my blog, that's why I told you because I had the impression you are not used to not being the only smart guy in the room.

I don't consider myself smart. I am about average for a non-Christian. If I arrive at correct conclusions it is because I began from the correct premise, deterministic materialism. Though I am much less sure of determinism than I am of materialism as of late.

I said nothing of the sort.

I didn't say you did. It was an analogy. Analogies are never apples to apples comparisons or they wouldn't be analogies. My point was that the fact that humans have recreated something doesn't mean it cannot happen naturally.

I am saying that it is not implausible or absurd to suggest that a crystal of such kind and beauty and perfection and size might point to a different origin than mere chaos and static noise, since naturally occurring crystals emanating from such chaos usually have different qualities.

Natural selection isn't chaos and static noise. It is anything but a random process. The only random element of it is mutation, the rest proceeds according to environmental conditions.

To my knowledge there is nothing about humans or any other living organisms that's inconsistent with having been produced purely by natural selection. There are for example many mistakes evolution made in our bodies that an intelligence would not have.

If you do not propose an intelligent designer but only that evolution is some sort of supernatural force, if it makes such mistakes, how would products of it differ in any discernible way from products of evolution as a purely natural process?

I don't disagree with that. I only postulate that the original rule set might be the result of something different than a meaningless coincidence.

Sure, anything might be true. But what indications of this have you seen? It's also not really accurate to call it a meaningless coincidence. Natural selection has a specific and meaningful "goal", in that it favors those species better able to survive long enough to reproduce and rear their young in whatever the current environmental conditions are.

I'm not searching for any, I find life itself supernatural enough as it is; meanwhile, I have the impression that no example I give you would satisfy your own high standard for supernaturality, as you would insist in each instance that it's either a fraud or a misunderstanding, unwilling or unable to at least entertain the thought or to reserve some doubt.

Try me. I hear this frequently from Christians. "Even if Christ appeared in front of you, you would not believe!" And yet, Christ did not appear in front of me, except in their imagination.

It is a way to excuse themselves from defending their beliefs by painting me as an inherently unreasonable person, as if they have shown me mountains of evidence that I have ignored, when in fact they've shown me nothing.

Instead of just assuming that about me because it pleases you, show me some evidence. If you fear I will reject it, ask yourself why that is. Is it because I am really a stubborn and unfair person? Or because it's photoshopped jpegs from some guy's blog?

Where I am gladly willing to say "I know that I don't know"

That is not the impression I get from you. When we started out, you appeared pretty convinced that remote viewing is real. Not that you don't know whether it is.

Maybe you'll do so out of your own accord one day, when you experience yourself a phenomenon so mind-blowing that it defies all cartesianism.

Many thousands of people in this country claim to have been abducted by aliens, or to have seen Bigfoot. Am I unreasonable for doubting their reports? Do I just need to wait until I myself am abducted by aliens, or encounter Bigfoot in the woods?

Isn't that this philosophical problem mind-matter dualists are concerned with?

It applies more generally to materialism vs. substance dualism, but yes. In a nutshell, if I were to ask you why scientists haven't found any evidence for the supernatural, you'd say something like "they're searching for it using material instruments and their material senses."

This implies non-interactivity. Stephen Gould called this principle "non-overlapping magistera", contending that because religion and paranomal belief concerns immaterial phenomena that do not manifest in or intersect at all with the material universe, that it's outside the scope of science and thus science and religion/paranormal belief do not contradict one another.

The biggest problem with this is that most modern religions belief in an immaterial soul. How does the immaterial soul interact with our material brain/body in such a way as to control it, if the material and immaterial do not interact?

Moreover, if they don't interact, how do we know about the supernatural? Nobody could ever have seen anything immaterial. To see a ghost, for instance, photons would have to bounce off it and into your eye. To hear it, the ghost would have to vibrate air molecules to make a sound.

If the immaterial does interact with the material universe I ought to be able to see, hear, and otherwise detect supernatural stuff. Scientists should have found it by now. If it doesn't, then nobody has ever seen, hear or detected anything immaterial, and a more plausible explanation for why we began to believe in it is fraud and misunderstandings.

I never said or implied that every guy with an unpopular idea is an uncelebrated genius destined to be recognized as such by future generations.

Not in those words. What you said is "Because more than once in the history of human's quest for knowledge and enlightenment, the majority has been proven to be wrong", which is along the same lines as "there have been visionary geniuses who were right, but mocked in their own time".

I said (or meant to say) it's dumb, idiotic, stupid, unwise, the opposite of smart and intelligent, a disservice to knowledge, enlightenment and the pursuit of scientific insight, to join the chorus of laughter at every guy with an unpopular idea, since some of them have historically proven to be geniuses, some in their lifetime, others by future generations.

Indeed, so I didn't misunderstand you. Once again, the fact that some of those people turned out to be right doesn't have any bearing on the stuff you personally believe in, because hindsight is 20/20. Every guy with a free energy magnetic motor, Orgonic cloudbuster or Vril wand thinks he's the next Orville Wright or Louis Pasteur.

A believer could make the same argument. History is full of "Piltdown Men" and alchemists claiming they could produce the Philosopher's stone

Piltdown man was not perpetrated by scientists, and alchemy is not the same thing as chemistry. It is no more a part of the history of science than astrology is.

dinosaur museums are full of skeletons made entirely of plastic, imaginations allegedly extrapolated from tiniest bone fragments invisible to the public

I'd like to see which one you mean. I'll bet good money that they have legitimate reasons for that which you and I don't know about.

the 20th century is full of an entire species of scientists preoccupied with building ever larger particle accelerators and spaceships piercing deeper into the empty vastness of space, but so caught up in the fantasy universe of their own creation that they have become unable to communicate what it is exactly what they are trying to find or to achieve, what they have found and how it can be applied to help mankind on earth get any closer to a better world tapping into the potential for peace, health, abundance, prosperity and justice

I think nuclear power is a pretty obvious beneficial product of particle physics, and the point of space exploration has always been to safeguard humanity against possible extinction events.

Peace, health, abundance, prosperity and justice are social goals btw, not typically considered to be within the wheelhouse of science, although indeed, perhaps they should be. Science can tell us many useful things about how to live better.

You don't need a TV to predict which of them is onto something, just an open eye to see and a heart to feel.

Wololo, wololo. Ayoyoyo, ayoyoyo, wololo!

Just gotta keep building bigger particle accelerators and bigger space rockets, the answer to the question about life, the universe and everything awaits right around the corner! These alchemists surely are legit, unlike those of the centuries before!

Chemistry is not alchemy. Astronomy is not astrology. The only commonality is that chemistry and alchemy both concerned material properties and how to change them, and that astronomy and astrology both concerned the stars.

The scientific method made all the difference in the world. Making the pursuit of chemical or astronomical knowledge rigorous and formalized meant they could produce actual repeatable, independently verifiable results.

Astrology produces vague descriptions of personality that apply to anybody. Alchemy consists of chemical reactions discovered by trial and error, and accounted for with supernatural mythology.

You have some funny ideas about what science is and how it works. You seem to view it the way you do because it has implications you dislike, and you wish to make room for a class of phenomena you find compelling which science can find no evidence for.

Is that fair? Scientists aren't dour, mean people looking to ruin your day. Looking at them through that lens isn't fair, nor accurate.