I said science itself supplies all the "evidence" we need for pantheism, not that pantheism is a scientific proposition. Pantheism is indeed a philosophical or quasi-theological implication of scientific knowledge.
You don't think nature's self-creation is awe-inspiring in its supreme prodigiousness and prodigality? When was the last time you made a planet, a galaxy, or a universe?
I argue for the importance of aesthetic judgments elsewhere (not so much on Medium yet, but see the links below for starters). The argument is that aesthetic detachments piggybacks on objective, scientific detachment. Kantian aesthetics just replaces the interest in controlling nature as the latter's objectively/universally understood, with the pleasure or disgust received from that same detached observation. If you're already thinking scientifically and universally rather than with a personal agenda, you have all the cognitive tools you need for aesthetic evaluation. Therefore, aesthetic values are as deep and inevitable as scientific understanding for human thinkers.
That's not to say pantheism or this use of aesthetics is Kantian. Kant was wrong about all the technical details of his system. But he had many deep insights.
As you can see, then, this has nothing to do with Hegel. I'm aware that Hegel is important to the history of Western philosophy. I'm aware that he's influenced many other writers. I took a course on The Phenomenology of Spirit. The fact remains that he can't write, and his influence on philosophy is largely for the worse. All that real mumbo-jumbo from late-modern Continental philosophy? Those obscurantists can look back to Hegel as the founder of their school of pretentious posing.