Surely, holding the view that survival is a brutal fight for supremacy over other species, races, nations or people can rightfully be called a "bastardization".

Agreed.

I love it when an argument begins with "you don't understand" or "you misunderstand".

Is it impossible for you to misunderstand something?

No, it means that the net entropy of a system increases over time. Small iterations of localized complexity may occur, of course.

Agreed.

But that is not what evolution is.

Yes it is, though. I think we've zeroed in on your misunderstanding. Pardon me for saying so but that's how it appears to me:

It is clearly a force of nature, a law not understood yet, that allows for a self-sustaining chain reaction with extreme complexity, high order, and astounding stability for ages, defying all statistical probability of chance occurrence in a universe that otherwise is ruled by decay and entropy.

It is not conceived of as a force of nature by biologists. It does not defy statistical probability when properly understood but is an inevitable result of it. You might get something out of researching the terms "procedural generation" and "optimizing process", which evolution is an example of. When you understand what it fundamentally is, it's demystified.

Until then, this remains pure speculation, and my statement holds true.

If you consider predictions of any given theory to be pure speculation. But then evolution has a pretty good track record where predictive confirmation is concerned.

Besides, even if forms of life were found outside earth, it would still constitute an anomaly for aforementioned reasons, and would merely push back the question: is, then, abiogenesis an unknown law of nature? Would it support panspermia theories, and if so, where then did the process originate – and by virtue of which laws?

Turtles all the way down.

No, not "turtles all the way down". The terminus is the process of abiogenesis itself, about which more is known than you imagine. I should probably write another article just devoted to that, hopefully I can prevent discussions like this going forward.

Well, then it worked on one goat, didn't it? ;)

Somebody whispered to the goat that they were going to mail him to Afghanistan.

Supernatural phenomena have been observed, reported on and studied for millennia by all cultures.

No they haven't. That's not really what they observed. For example nobody ever really observed Thor hammering out new thunderbolts and throwing them to the Earth, that was just their supernatural assumption about the cause of lightning.

Likewise nobody ever really observed evil spirits causing illness. They just didn't understand what a germ is. Likewise with mental illness. Abraham most likely did not speak to a burning bush who was the mouthpiece of the creator of the universe telling him to kill his son, but that it's ok if he doesn't so long as he cuts off part of his penis instead. That still happens to old men today, we call it schizophrenia.

Some can be ascribed to frauds. Others may be mere misunderstandings. It does not follow that all supernatural phenomena are frauds or misunderstandings.

Yes it does. There are fundamental, self-defeating aspects of the supernatural as a concept, such as the Problem of Interaction.

That is why I propose to take the scientific route: to experiment. To merely discard any and all claims of "supernaturality" just because there is – or seems to be – a scientific consensus (or a vocal majority) is precisely the kind of dogmatism the scientific method was established to overcome.

That's been done. There have been experiments attempting to demonstrate the paranormal for a very long time. None have succeeded.

Because more than once in the history of human's quest for knowledge and enlightenment, the majority has been proven to be wrong.

Sure, they all laughed at Columbus. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

That's why a truly skeptic inquirer is invited to keep an open mind, to entertain ideas even without necessarily accepting them, and not to dismiss everything out of hand which does not immediately fit into the fragile edifice we call our "world view".

It also works in the other direction, though. A skeptic does not hold onto a cool idea despite centuries of experimentation failing to prove it has any merit whatsoever.

Despite really basic, core problems with the coherence of the idea and there existing no firm basis for belief that it was ever anything but human misunderstanding of natural phenomena, or deliberate fraud (cold reading for example).