Morphic fields are not new, nor worth paying attention to. The first edition of Sheldrake's book was published in 1981. People took him seriously enough to try to reproduce his experiments, and could not. After 30 years of nothing, you might as well go looking for the philosophers' stone. Very Kantian, but if you're postulating theories about thing-in-itself that aren't observable in the thing-as-perceived you aren't doing science anymore.In this article I didn't think they were proving the existence of a creator but rather they were pointing out that there's a new theory out there that might solve this problem for this problem. If we discredit it straight away as a creationist theory, aren't we doing ourselves a disfavour to science?
What I do recognise is that humans are trying to define the world through our own senses, which we all agree are very limited in the universal context. Perhaps the answer is beyond this limitation? Just sayin'.