I agree that it's presently hard for scientists to explain consciousness, but only because it's hard for anyone to explain it. As I point out in the article, idealism offers no advantage at all over naturalism in this respect. And a fig leaf like the concept of emergence is better than no explanation. Saying that God miraculously created consciousness doesn't explain it. On the contrary, that sort of appeal is the opposite of a rational explanation.

And my point is that the "ethereal realm" where minds are supposed to "exist," according to metaphysical idealism, is just a misleading way of presupposing space and time. Otherwise, the idealist would need to specify how that realm works in a supernatural way that would have testable implications, so we could compare the merits of the two worldviews.