Think bigger think better.

No one is disagreeing here. But evolution and natural selection are not the same thing. So when an astronomer is talking about the evolution of a star and a biologist is talking about the evolution of a species, they are both talking about change, but that mechanism is very, very different. This is why Darwin is not credited with coming up with the idea that animals may evolve; his own grandfather wrote about that.It's also true that there is a kind of selection (if you can call it that, I'm stretching the definition for argument's sake) on abiotic matter: Those things that are the most structurally sound will last the longest. But still, this is not selection like natural selection, because natural selection (as defined by Darwin) cannot act on something that does not replicate itself. So again, a star may evolve (change), and certain stars may last longer than others of have a different final state (black hole vs. white dwarf), but this start cannot directly create another star, and so once it burns out that's it, it's specific structure and composition is no more.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

I never said this wasn't true. In fact, I never even mentioned cultural (or, as you put, intelligent) selection. And of course ideas (or memes, as Dawkins put it) can evolve in a very similar manner to genes. However, they are not identical. Memes, because they can be shaped and changed within one mind are more Lamarckian than Darwinian in their evolution. But this is neither here nor there. My point was that I disagree with the following statement you made in your opening post. I don't agree that the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life are caused by the same process because the inorganic entities such as stars are not replicating themselves. They are dying and new ones are forming, but they are not related to each other. While, again, I agree that natural and "intelligent" selection are very similar, I don't think this is true for what you call "primal" selection. All you've pointed out is a similar end result, which in no way proves a similar process or mechanism. Not to mention, you have yet to show how the "primal evolution" of the universe shows a branching structure similar to the evolution of organisms or ideas.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other. Unless, of course, process and mechanical mode of operation are not synonyms. And if they are not, can you please tell me in what way they are different?

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely