sunyatta60
07-11-2007, 09:52 AM
Sir Frederick Hoyle was an astronomer who worked at Cambridge University. He coined the term Big Bang for the theory that describes a catastrophic event for the beginning of the universe in derision. He himself believed in a steady state universe.
Late in his career, he also compared the likelyhood of a living cell arising from evolution to "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a Boeing 747. Because this caricature of the evolutionary process has been shown to be wrong n many levels, it has led to the coinage of the concept as "Hoyle's Fallacy" (NY Times 10/28/07). Still it is offered on creationist/designer web sites and has even been asserted in this community by an individual.
Here's why it's so wrong and considered a fallacy. The argument imagines evolution to occur by chance alone. Indeed, if evolution were the product of chance, the 747 argument might be valid. But, the absence of creation/design is not chance, it is natural selection. Natural selection occurs in increments, small steps at a time. It is a cumulative process so that the problem of improbability is divided up into tiny peices. The final product of this accumulation is highly improbable, and far beyond the possibility of chance.
The NY Times article discussed Hoyle in the context of scientists who late in their careers leave what they know well and veer off into "unfamiliar territory---and get quickly in over their heads".
Late in his career, he also compared the likelyhood of a living cell arising from evolution to "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a Boeing 747. Because this caricature of the evolutionary process has been shown to be wrong n many levels, it has led to the coinage of the concept as "Hoyle's Fallacy" (NY Times 10/28/07). Still it is offered on creationist/designer web sites and has even been asserted in this community by an individual.
Here's why it's so wrong and considered a fallacy. The argument imagines evolution to occur by chance alone. Indeed, if evolution were the product of chance, the 747 argument might be valid. But, the absence of creation/design is not chance, it is natural selection. Natural selection occurs in increments, small steps at a time. It is a cumulative process so that the problem of improbability is divided up into tiny peices. The final product of this accumulation is highly improbable, and far beyond the possibility of chance.
The NY Times article discussed Hoyle in the context of scientists who late in their careers leave what they know well and veer off into "unfamiliar territory---and get quickly in over their heads".