Oh Bex please . . . enough with the quote mines already. And Russ, you too. No one apart from creationists pays any attention to them. After Darwin said that about the eye, he went on to explain the different stages of eye evolution.

I have to say that I find this particular critique of existing evolutionary theory intriguing. Now as you know, I'm not someone who's going to declare that every time an area of the ToE is disputed, every time scientists don't agree on a part of it, that the whole thing is invalidated and that therefore creationism is the winner by default. I think there is overwhelming evidence that organisms have been evolving on earth for millions of years. But do I think we are 100% certain about how that happened? No.

Evolution has been observed to occur quite rapidly -- surprisingly rapidly. I read an article recently about species of weeds that had adapted to an urban environment which favours quick germination in places like cracks in the pavement. In just several generations, these weeds' reproductive cycles had changed noticeably from those of their rural counterparts. Sceintists were puzzled by this.

Now and then, someone who is willing to think outside of the box comes up with a new idea. I've been reading about one by Rupert Sheldrake; he is a biologist by training and could have had a sterling career at Cambridge, where he worked -- until he came out with his idea of morphic fields. The scientific mainstream hated it so much that the editor of one prestigious journal said his book should be burned. They didn't like it because it introduced concepts that they called "magic."

Sheldrake has simultaneously been conducting experiments in subjects such as the sense of being stared at, and dogs that know when their owners are coming home. He's been working for years to present scientific evidence for the existence of the extended mind. Morphic fields is his idea for how the extended mind might work. It's an idea rooted in biology -- he believes that phenomena like telepathy are normal for animals, and have evolved through natural selection because they are advantageous.

Part of this idea is a morphogenetic field, which is like a blueprint for how organisms evolve and develop. The field would be as real as a magnetic field surrounding a magnet, and it would determine that a mouse would develop to be a mouse, and a human to be a human. It would contain the ancetral memory of other animals that have gone before (a kind of explanation for Jung's idea of the collective unconscious) and would also help guide adaptive evolution. Keep in mind that most scientists think this is simply silly and they are not interested. However, I find it intriguing and it captures my imagination.I'm not even saying that Sheldrake is right, but that I think he may be onto something. I don't like the rationalistic paradigm that has pervaded science for several centuries now; today it says that everything we experience is in the brain, and that all the brain is, is a collection of neurons and cells. Talk to some scientists about consciousness and they believe we will be able to pinpoint it somewhere in the brain or in the electrical or cellular activity therein. Not all of them think this way but the majority do.

If anyone wants to know more about morphic or morphogenetic fields, I can give some links.

I was hesitant to mention these things in talking to creationists because I know what you'll say: "You mean evolutionists really haven't 100% explained everything? You mean you question some things they say? Then creationism must be right if they are wrong!" As I explained before, this is not what I'm saying at all. But I do agree that scientists haven't got it 100% right, they don't know everything. That's what makes science exciting: the possibility of new ideas and discoveries.