You Tube Videos on Evolution/Creationism

Mind you, I've not viewed the video. But Fred Hoyle is on record as an opponent of "chemical evolution", offering panspermia as his alternative, and is widely quoted by creationists and IDists, especially his "tornado sweeping through a junkyard assembling a 747 by pure chance". From the Wikipedia page on him (Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia):

quote:

---

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.[11] (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".

---

And earlier in the same article:

quote:

---

However, those energy levels, while needed in order to produce carbon in large quantities, were statistically very unlikely. Hoyle later wrote:

​

quote:

---

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." Of course you would . . . 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.

---

​

Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a guiding force in the universe, which led him to a belief in panspermia.[4] Those who advocate the intelligent design hypothesis 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".[5] Some of Hoyle's thoughts in this area have been referred to as "Hoyle's fallacy" by detractors.

---

So Hoyle would be better labelled an IDist, even though he was motivated by an form of religious belief.Interestingly, he co-authored his panspermia book, Evolution From Space, with Chandra Wickramasinghe, who testified at the 1981 Arkansas creationism trial on behalf of the creationists.PS
And the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are two different things. The fact of evolution is that evolution has happened, whereas the theories of evolution are attempts to explain how it happens.Those are two separate questions that need to be addressed separately, such that you cannot disprove the fact by attacking parts of the theories. Even Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR acknowledges that in his use of philosopher of science Larry Laudan's article that was critical of Judge Overton's pronouncements about the nature of science in his opinion for the 1981 Arkansas trial: lack of a mechanism to explain a phenomenon does not disprove the phenomenon. Of course, Gish only wanted that to apply to creationism and not to evolution.So then, the two questions are:
1. Did evolution happen? (the fact)
2. How did evolution happen? (the theories) {"Links and Information" forum - Not the place for debate on the video content. Find a better place for such. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by dwise1, : PSEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Comments in red.