Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

The thing with science, though, is it's transparent, you could discover the evidence and reasoning involved.  So dismissing it on account of incredulity is simply laziness.  You are justified in being skeptical, but that's not the same as dismissing it, which is what your OP requires.  In other words, you've pretended to know more than you do.

That assessment seems terribly dishonest.  It's not incredulity that denies tangible-intangible collisions. It's tautology and common sense.

A tangible object is BY DEFINITION a collision-able object. (Just like a square is by definition an example of a rectangle).
Conversely an intangible object is BY DEFINITION a non-collision-object.  Therefore an intangible will never push tangible matter. Period.

Yet you endlessly and dishonestly repeat the accusation that my incredulity alone is driving this conclusion.

Your incredulity about the opposite is the only thing holding you to these principles. And I'm pretty sure those aren't a part of the definitions.

tangible

A.
adjective

1.a.
1589–
Capable of being touched; affecting the sense of touch; touchable.

intangible

A.
adjective

a.
1640–
Not tangible; incapable of being touched; not cognizable by the sense of touch; impalpable.

---