Scientists, when conducting science, are constrained by the fact that the enterprise of science works from evidence, so the farther you go from the observable phenomenon, the less reliable your work is. Therefore, science is typically restricted to investigating immediate causes.
That said, it's also easy to constrain the idea of 'scientists' and 'science' to the so-called harder sciences of physics, chemistry, geology and the like, but social scientists like sociologists, archaeologists, political scientists and economists put huge amounts of work into examining the more variable and more subtle influences of human behaviour and cultural pressures.
And, lastly, there is an implication in what you've written that there IS a 'cause' behind life and evolution, and not merely a series of incremental steps which ended up producing life but which wasn't at any point an intention.
As to the particulars of the article you've posted, the attempt to hijack sciency-sounding language with the 'ubiquitous field of consciousness' initialism is fine, so long as there is any evidence whatsoever to support the claim - I don't see any in the article.
Then you have the paradox of attempting to use consciousness to explain life when we only have any evidence for consciousness as a consequence of life - again, there'd need to be some demonstration of consciousness independent of something living in order to make the conjecture anything more than deepity.
O.
