Cross out the author's name and ask what is being requested in that article:

"Many details have been discovered, hundreds of genomes have been sequenced, but there is still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry alone."

So, what would such a "proof" look like?

Inductive procedures are open-ended. The next experiment can always render ideas and explanations inadequate. Hence, there never will be a final proof in the way that he seems to want one.

What does he mean by "explained...alone"?

If he has some viewpoint/theory that brings in something that is not of "physics and chemistry alone" let him bring it forth and present with the new theory the empirical evidence that it is needed for the purposes of "explanation".

There is no need for him to bemoan "arrogance". Let him bring on the reproducible evidence that demonstrates the provisional correctness of his non-"physics and chemistry alone" theories and the community will accept his results.







ALSO: Here is a different thread that was locked in the Science Group. If you look at Sheldrake's book as linked to in this other thread, you will likely find that nonsense comes up fairly quickly - i.e., as seen in his book, unobserved processes are promoted to being classified as phenomena:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12281675#post5