Yes, Dawkins and Coyne are (Darwinian) biologists. They are also atheists. That they are both seems tentatively to support my argument rather than yours; the two activities seem to go together.

What does “Dennett dabbles in philosophy of biology” mean, other than being an attempt to deflate my argument? He specifically appeals to Darwin in order to back up his atheism, e.g. his title Darwin's Dangerous Idea. I'm not arguing for an “intelligent creator in the classical sense”; you, Benjamin Cain, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and I are all non-theists. That isn't what the debate is about. It's about a-theism, which would include a denial of Brahman.

I understand that the modern synthesis experimentally demonstrated chemical and biological evolution. This is not in doubt. But that misses the point.

If this isn't from the original synthesis, then it is from later advocates of it. The point in dispute is that evolution happens blindly, without teleology, via a process of natural selection acting upon random genetic mutations (i.e. copying errors). That is what, in my opinion, has not been demonstrated experimentally. If it has, then provide me with the details. Also I would suggest that such an idea is in conflict with your own: information is energy is matter. Matter, according to you, is at the end of a hierarchical top-down process, which the synthesis tries to deny.

I agree with you that talking about Brahman in any terms is a futile enterprise. Yet it is a fundamental concept in Hinduism, therefore we are compelled to do so. And you do. You're going to have to explain to me how something not a person is indeed personal. This would on the face of it seem like a difficult task, if any talking is a futile enterprise. And why is there a need to make a distinction between Brahman and Brahma, if what you say is true (“Brahman is everything”)?

The title of your link is suggestive of something like intelligent design. If information is the source of energy and matter (something I'm going to argue later in the series), then are you saying that this information is unintelligent? Presumably this information is equivalent to some form of plan/blueprint, which explains why the material universe is so well organised.

I'm happy to agree with you that “Brahman is self-regulating and self-transforming and it is absolutely everything”. But regulation requires intelligence of some type. You are presumably saying that Brahman does this blindly, without teleology. That would seem unlikely to me.