A new theoryhypothesis of the universe

Robert Lanza, who some of you would know from the debate about stemcell research, has come up with a new theory of the unviverse, based (he says) on biology.

It is explained in The American Scholar, and he also talks about it in a Q&A in Wired

From the Q&A

Wired News: You call your theory of the universe a biocentric theory. What, exactly, does that mean?

Lanza: This new theory presents a shift in world view with the perspective that life creates the universe instead of the other way around.

WN: I imagine that a lot of physicists will be rather upset by your article. How do you expect them to react?

Lanza: People are not going to be very happy with what this all means. This theory is going to invalidate their (some scientists) entire life's work. I will definitely get crucified.

We've got the scientific structure and framework incorrect. We need a theory that is internally consistent. We can't do this without creating a biological understanding of space and time. This will require restructuring science so that biology is above physics.

This is a very good example of both the Q&A and the article - he says a lot of things, but it really is science-less.

I'll let more qualified people discuss the ideas behind the hypothesis (it's certainly not a theory in the scientific sense), but to me, it sounds like a lot of spiritual talk, with very little scientific content.
Maybe he should work a little more on it, and get it published in a peer-reviewed science publication.