Sadly, the author does not understand the first thing about biology or biologists. I know exactly zero biologists who believe that DNA represents a "blue print" for an organism. That view may have been popular when the heritibility of DNA was first discovered many decades ago, but it is no longer in the main stream, and hasn't been for some time. The human genome project has shed light on the nature of some diseases, but none but the most dogmatic thinkers ever thought it would yield the secret of life. There is so much more complexity to heritibility than DNA. It would be silly for me to try to go into it in a short comment section, but suffice it to say that the set of biomolecules expressed in the mammals (and apes/humans in particular) is vastly more complex than that of a worm or an insect, despite the fact that our sheer number of protein coding genes is not strikingly different. Do we know everything about development? No, of course not. That is why there is still research in this field. But so is the way of the creationist (and you don't have to be a young Earth, Bible thumper to be a creationist): Ask if "science" can explain everything. If the answer is "no", then all is wrong and only God (or whatever substitute, e.g. "consciousness") can be correct.
Can you direct me to this research please? I didn't see any references to God and the definition of consciousness is vastly different from the Biblical God. Science recognises invisible fields like magnetism so I don't see much of jump from there to an all prevading energy (since we all came form the same Big Bang) aka consciousness. Remember the double slit experiment? Where an observer (consciousness) appears to affect the physical experiment? It's an interesting one and I'm not suggesting that this proves an interaction of awareness and matter. But I do think it's an interest theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory. Sometimes science seems to forget that some of the discoveries that are widely accepted and taken for granted are still theories. 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? I'm agnostic, I don't really care for the existence or non-existence of an all pervading consciousness but I'm open minded. 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'.Do we know everything about development? No, of course not. That is why there is still research in this field.
But so is the way of the creationist (and you don't have to be a young Earth, Bible thumper to be a creationist): Ask if "science" can explain everything. If the answer is "no", then all is wrong and only God (or whatever substitute, e.g. "consciousness") can be correct.
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'.