251)." Still, Hoyle argues that there must have been some "intelligence" behind the emergence of life on Earth. To forestall any speculation about his apparent "conversion," he says bluntly: "I am not a Christian, nor am I likely to become one as far as I can tell (p. 11-12).ĭoes this mean that Hoyle has become a creationist? Well, not exactly, and he doesn't expect to either. …as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. In his well-illustrated and impressive new book, The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983, 256 pp.), Hoyle says: And still another is Hoyle's own proposal, a remarkable mutation of neo-Darwinism. Another idea, a less popular one, is Jean Piaget's recommendation to reinstate the long rejected Lamarckism-the view that learned or acquired traits might be passed on from one generation to the next. Stephen Jay Gould has proposed reviving the despised view of Goldschmidt who believed in "hopeful monsters," the idea that something like a dog, say, might just hatch from, say, a chicken's egg once in a great while. Now that evolutionists admit openly that the fossil record never did support the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy after all, they need a substitute. His reasoning slams like a steel door against any kind of accidental evolution, and several have recently been proposed in one form or another to plug the holes in neo-Darwinism-especially the gaps in the fossil record. It couldn't just happen without intelligence. Darwinism is the game and Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-present), the distinguished astronomer, is the odds maker. No, not poker, and not Edmond Hoyle (1672-1769), the famed authority on card games and chess.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |