Can you direct me to this research please? I didn't see any references to God and the definition of consciousness is vastly different from the Biblical God. Science recognises invisible fields like magnetism so I don't see much of jump from there to an all prevading energy (since we all came form the same Big Bang) aka consciousness. Remember the double slit experiment? Where an observer (consciousness) appears to affect the physical experiment? It's an interesting one and I'm not suggesting that this proves an interaction of awareness and matter. But I do think it's an interest theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory. Sometimes science seems to forget that some of the discoveries that are widely accepted and taken for granted are still theories. In this article I didn't think they were proving the existence of a creator but rather they were pointing out that there's a new theory out there that might solve this problem for this problem. If we discredit it straight away as a creationist theory, aren't we doing ourselves a disfavour to science? I'm agnostic, I don't really care for the existence or non-existence of an all pervading consciousness but I'm open minded. What I do recognise is that humans are trying to define the world through our own senses, which we all agree are very limited in the universal context. Perhaps the answer is beyond this limitation? Just sayin'.Do we know everything about development? No, of course not. That is why there is still research in this field.
But so is the way of the creationist (and you don't have to be a young Earth, Bible thumper to be a creationist): Ask if "science" can explain everything. If the answer is "no", then all is wrong and only God (or whatever substitute, e.g. "consciousness") can be correct.