The critique of Chopra is cogent enough until we get to the part written by the fellow from the NCSE which is even worse than Chopra.
The misuse of the term ‘consciousness’ is vexatious: someone like Chopra might have distinguished consciousness and self-consciousness at which point mystical naturalism as consciousness suffers fatal ambiguity and fails.
ewton, who taught geology and oceanography at a number of California colleges and developed courses on the history of science and the geology of America’s national parks, also cited this from Chopra: “An emerging view, alternate to Darwin’s random mutations & natural selection is that consciousness may be the driver of complexity/evolution.”To give you an idea of Newton’s admittedly sarcastic critique, he responded to that by writing: Again with the “consciousness.” Again with no specifics on how this drives evolution. Is a jelly in the ocean obeying universal consciousness as it pulses its stinging cells toward prey? Does a plant have consciousness? Does Kim Kardashian?