honu

At a glance this looks like sloppy philosophy to me (but I appreciate the reference, it was interesting).  I see nothing to do with Buddhism but I'll comment anyway.

To begin with a separate point, the initial idea about the low probability of life working out as it has is based on a flawed premise, that of looking back on a series of events and claiming one outcome was highly unlikely.  A clearer assessment would recognize that any one outcome was highly unlikely, but there being just one outcome was inevitable.  Take selecting one card after another randomly from a deck.  The chances of getting that order was magnificently low, 52 factorial or 8 x 10 to the 27th (the 10 to the 49th power mentioned in relation to this reality occuring seemed to come out of thin air).  Evolution works as a theory because it claims a lot of highly unlikely things can happen over time if supporting mechanisms develop on their own, that is, if the process includes repetition.  There are many possible corrolaries:  for example, non-sustainable life could start but later no one would know.  If sentient life evolves then the evidence is just in that existence, with traces of initial causes much more difficult to get to.

As far as the philosophy goes there seems to be little worth considering (with the obvious limitation that I've only read this article and Wikepedia article myself, both limited sources).  Saying space and time are functions of consciousness rather than physics is not a particularly inventive twist on the standard realism / idealism debate, and relativity has nothing to do with that claim anyway.  It's just a more complex model of some aspects of physical reality than Newtonian physics.  Of course human perception is shaped by a human perspective based on space and time, but moving on to claim anything about that is the problem.  That space and time don't exist without us?  Only in the same sense we experience them, and you're back to saying nothing at all.

The article wants to conclude that consciousness started the whole process but it's not clear how (it doesn't say).  You might as well start referencing God at that point; that's essentially where you are.  Atheists and agnostics are just arguing that you're only giving a vague conceptual name to your ignorance, that it doesn't add any explanatory value to make a first cause a single conscious entity, and they have a point.  Generalizing consciousness itself seems a step in the wrong direction; how would that cause the Big Bang?  You need God, or at least most of what's meant by the concept.  The strongest evidence for an ill-formed argument is that this reality seems unlikely to have happened but evolutionists would give you that.  Everyone more or less agrees on that much, even people that think that life might not be that interesting and that there might be tons of it in the universe (because each case would be interesting and different, most likely, or maybe not so much from a broader perspective, who knows).  Maybe every planet has a guy that eats a lot of hot dogs at some point.

Bah!