What got into Hoyle?

From what I understand of Hoyle is that while is dissent from mainstream theory is, in many respects, rare, if not inimitable, there are definite reasons why he believed in his theorems.I think Hoyle and his protege, Wickramasinghe, did a lot of good work. I have quoted them in past discussions concerning their caution to the Darwinian theory of evolution. But at the same time, both of them are indirect panspermists, which, lets be honest, is just about as fanciful as Hoyle deemed Darwinian macroevolution is.As far as cosmology is concerned, there is scant reason to assume that his Steady State theory is true. Although, during his time and operating with now antiquated technology, one can't discount his reasons for his belief in a static universe. For however many problems people associate with the Big Bang, (which, as a side note, it was Hoyle that actually coined the phrase "Big Bang") it still has more observational backbone.

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

Well, you've got to think that Hoyle was and is a respected astronomer for his work. But at the same time, Percy makes a good point. To a lot of people, Hoyle seemed to be one of the more eminent scientists of his day, but then his theories began to go against the grain of the mainstream.As for his Steady State theory, his reasons for not believing in an expanding universe may have had more to do with some personal philosophical dilemmas than they did with actual data that countered the Red Shift. I sense that much like one of Hawking's pet theories, Hoyle, in the face of evidence to the contrary, tried to stubbornly stick to his model and to occasionally trim it up when evidence clearly was not in his favor.As far explaining what his cosmological theory entailed, Cavediver's description would probably do far more justice than any attempt made by me.If you're willing to sit down and peruse through the objections against the SS model, here is a link. Here is another link outlining the objections against the BB theory. Both are very dry information for a layman like me, so I wouldn't blame you for losing interest.

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

Hmmmmm? Then I guess I'm not familiar with this. Can you expound on this, perhaps by providing some of his works, where we can compare and contrast older works from the new?

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

I'm not familiar with Hoyle's Archaeopteryx argument, so I cannot currently defend or criticize it. If you have any information on it, I would like to read up on it though.As far as creationists lauding Hoyle, it seems like an odd fit. I mean, Hoyle was an atheist and an indirect panspermist. That's not exactly a match made in heaven-- no pun intended. But it seems that as long as someone will defy evolution and the big bang, many YEC's will gladly support their points.Which is another thing. I've never really understood why YEC's have a problem with the BB. I mean, Hoyle was repulsed by the notion that the universe had a beginning at the singularity. And creationists say that the universe had a definite beginning. So why the controversy? I've never understood that.

---

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton