Hoyle is probably the best example of a nonreligious scientist who didn’t believe in evolution. His work in cosmology was once considered mainstream science. Some of his theories still resurface from time to time. Therefore, I think that a discussion of Hoyle would satisfy the rules of this forum (barely).
Hoyle was very famous with respect to one theoretical aspect of astronomy. I take it his work in cosmology was considered pretty good at one time. However, he was very poor in science outside his specialty. To me, his story is a cautionary tale on the dangers of combining overspecialization with extrapolation.
Hoyle is a scientist who seems to understand cosmology to a large degree. Even when he is wrong about cosmology, he his speculations are plausible enough to stimulate thought. However, he didn't know chemistry and he didn't know biology. He extrapolated some of the ideas that he had regarding cosmology to biology. He tried to make a biological theory consistent with his steady state model, which is wrong!
Hoyle was an astronomer who did not believe in the theory of evolution. He was not religious, and could be called an atheist He was well thought of as an astronomer, although few of his astronomical theories have been observationally confirmed. He is most famous for championing the “steady state model” of the universe. I think most of this work involved variations on general relativity. He interpreted all astronomy in terms of his “steady state model.”
Although one could consider him a “real scientist” with respect to astronomy, I do not consider Fred Hoyle a “real biologist”. His analysis of biology and chemistry was not rigorous or formal. Therefore, I don’t think that he was really a scientist in the broad sense.
I have read about some of his theories. I don’t think that he knew much about biology or organic chemistry. He made a large amount of mistakes. One calculation that he made which is commonly quoted is of the probability of a cell being formed by chance (10^-4000). However, I don’t think his analysis was really rigorous. In fact, I can’t even find a detailed reference to his calculation. Basically, he states the number without physical justification. His calculation was really numerology, not science.
Hoyles concept of the theory of evolution actually comes from Haekel, not Darwin. When debunking the theory of evolution, he looked for evidence showing that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. Since no other biologist including Darwin believed in that theory, the theory that he debunks is really a straw man. Hoyle doesn’t seem to know much about anatomy either.
His idea of extraterrestrial viruses does not make sense since biological molecules are unstable. He did not know about DNA, RNA or protein transcription. We now know that the mere insertion of a genetic sequence can’t produce a new species. He seems to think viruses are raining down on Earth keeps on causing saltations which are new species.
Note that his Intelligent Design is not religious. In Hoyles mind, extraterrestrial aliens created the biosphere of the earth. These ET’s were created by earlier ET’s. This may be logically consistent with his Steady State Theory.
Hoyle did not believe in the Big Bang. His models relied on the idea that the universe always existed and always will exist. Therefore, there is an infinite series of living creatures that keep making up the next round of living creatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003 "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered".[11]
In 1982 Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote probability of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:
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 or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
—Fred Hoyle[12]
Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer 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.
Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) belief sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned in order to allow intelligent life to be possible. Alfred Russel of the Uncommon Descent community has even gone so far as labeling Hoyle "an atheist for ID".[13]
Please note that his analogies don’t correspond to the theories of real biologists or chemists. The process that he describes does not even correspond to the theories of abiogenesis on earth. I suspect that he doesn’t know much about chemistry at all. His knowledge of natural history is also abysmal, but I don’t want to get into that right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
“According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
Which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4]”
If you want to sort through Hoyles mathematical arguments, get this book. Here is a link to a book where he makes the calculations themselves. I noticed that I can’t accept the assumptions that he makes in just the first few sentences. Maybe you can get further.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
“Fred Hoyle was a lifelong Darwin, Darwinism and evolution critic. Every Darwin critic appears to know his famous Boeing-747 story to criticize the origin of life by pure chance. The story was much quoted, often without access to the original source. Mathematics of Evolution originally circulated as copies of a hand-written manuscript back in 1987, and has now for the first time been printed.”
Please note that we know a lot more about genetics that was known in Hoyles time. Furthermore, Hoyle did not know even as much about genetics as was known then.
Worse, Hoyles doesn't understand thermodynamics. In his steady state universe, the second law of thermodynamics can't be true. So there is no thermodynamics in anything that he writes. So anytime he makes a calculation involving chemistry, watch out!
