Tap, here is something else that may interest you.
Hoyle was convinced that evolution was nonsense. He famously compared it to shaking a jar full of watch parts and thinking that if you shook the jar for long enough you would get a watch. The theory of evolution simply is inadequate. It can explain some things but it can’t explain everything by a long chalk.
The theory of evolution survives for ideological reasons. not biological ones. Of course they refuse to apply evolution theory to social and cultural matters where radical disfunctionality is being imposed by political correctness, and ancient, successful cultural forms are being abolished in favour of egalitarian, Marxist ones with no evolutionary survivability.
The result is of course a low birth rate and millions of patients with stress and depression in the doctor’s waiting rooms. The birth rate is kept down by means of a toxic children’s kulcha that makes one child all most parents can stand.
TAP – Gordon, look no further than the high intake of sodium fluoride for the huge rates of depression in the USA – 20 million addicted to anti-depressants, themselves adding to the fluoride load, which messes up the pineal gland that controls mood and sleep.
We(The Tap Family!)’re about to have another child, due in three months!!! The kulcha hasn’t hit us yet. But that’s probably because we live a lot of the time in the Philippines where babies and mothers are first class citizens. Dads do alright too with nannies, cooks, maids, drivers, relatives and friends all willing to help with the first few years of a baby’s life. In the UK you’re on your own, sure enough, and baby-making is very hard work. That’s why they make visas almost impossible for genuine relationships, to keep access to the poor world where breeding is much easier, to a minimum. Only the corrupt get through.
UPDATE from Wikipedia –
Rejection of chemical evolution
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution used to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. 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 evolution 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, 
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 was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes.
“ 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 compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously. (See the watchmaker analogy for similar reasoning.)
Hoyle’s statements and this line of reasoning (at various levels of accuracy) appears frequently in support of intelligent design. Mainstream evolutionary biology rejects Hoyle’s interpretation of statistics, and supporters of modern evolutionary theory, such as Richard Dawkins, refer to this as “Hoyle’s fallacy”.