I like his vim and vigor, but he is one confused man...
the fact that he looks to science, then (knowingly) uses his lack of knowledge and misinterpretation of it's theories to filter spiritual questions is absurd from the beginning. He makes compelling pleas, but it has about as much bearing on the science he quotes as What The Bleep Do We Know? had on its own circular logic. (not a whole lot apparently)
I feel, that as humans, we have viewed our place in the natural order as a birth right and an intended consequence for far too long and we believe, we demand, that we have the right to know the eventual outcome of everything. Science is the foundation for casting a net in the dark and when it snags something we feel out the proverbial elephant and guess its trunk as a snake, then search the area and guess it's tail a rope and on and on. Meanwhile our drive to know our meaning in this world has us invent stories about the snakes and the ropes and how they embody and reflect our deeper selves on every level, certain we are connected to the larger, uncaring whole.
If we can in fact survive as a species long enough into the next century to develop technology these new age pseudo-science ideas of his will be laughable the way a child wears his parents shoes and pretends to be a grown up. The sad truth of our condition is we know little more than we did 10,000 years ago and are no better off for it. The next iteration of our post apocalyptic species will harvest grain and invent tales about creator gods and animals and the ghosts that always lurk beyond the trees and will perceive no more the shape of the elephant in the dark room than we can guess at now. Little brains that think large were the best gift and the greatest curse we ever received.
We are as inevitable and simultaneously accidental as ants, koala bears, gamma rays, sunshine and hydrogen. This reality wouldn't be what it is without us to tell stories about it, how could we refute that?