Fred Hoyle

"Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stances on other cosmological and scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by him on BBC radio. In addition to his work as an astronomer, Hoyle was a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-written with his son Geoffrey Hoyle. Hoyle spent most of his working life at the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge and served as its director for a number of years. He died in Bournemouth, England, after a series of strokes."(wiki)

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

Schaefer reacts to this statement with "My own view is that .. these skeptics .. are unintentionally supporting the position put forth by St. Paul nearly two millennia earlier.." (Romans 1:20)

The Universe: Past and Present Reflections

Engineering and Science, 11/81, p8-12.
"Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'"

F. Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981

"It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner... Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."p130.

"The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems... cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible... The correct position we think is... an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life... This is tantamount to arguing that carbonaceous life was invented by noncarbonaceous intelligence."

"the intelligence which assembled the enzymes did not itself contain them ... which by no means need be God, however." p139.

Evolution from Space

Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 1/12/1982.

"Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture... So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true."

Mathematics of Evolution, 1999

"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory."

New Scientist, November 1981

"Imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling, of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

Windows of Creation
Evidence from nature Is the universe designed?
Strobel, Case for a Creator
  Reasonable Faith Go Back