In fact, what Peter said was that everything 'paranormal' has been 'found' to be either fraud or chance.

It has.
Now, I don't know about this instance of trying to fit 'paranormal' phenomena into a scientific framework, myself. But if he really meant "that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition "It's bollocks."" in general, he would HAVE to reject both 'dark energy' and string theory, and say that they are 'bollocks'.

No, I wouldn't. I'd call them "hypotheses", because that's what they are.

Get the difference? Dark energy and string theory may or may not be right. The scientific method of hypotheses-observation-evidence-GOTO 10 will either support or demolish them.

But there's a fuckload more convincing maths for either of those two ideas than there is for the half-baked gibberish that's summarised by the phrase "quantum mind".