Customer Reviews

Intelligent Universe

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

It does not take much time to read this book because half of the space is covered by illustrations. If you are a student who is assigned to make a book report, and if you want the teacher to think you did twice as much reading as you really did, this might be the book for you.

In this book, Fred Hoyle expresses an opinion which is rejected by most other scientists. He claims that all of life on our planet is descended from microbes which arrived in a meteor shower. Although other scientists say that a microbe could not survive the hot temperature which results from entering the atmosphere, Hoyle argues to the contrary.

If we progressed from microbes to humans, then one would think that life then proceeded according to Darwin's description, but Hoyle argues that such a process would be impossible. What he proposes as an alternative is not quite clear to me. On page 250, the next-to-the-last page of the book, he tells us that the microorganisms merged to create macroorganisms. However, on page 117, he says that our genes have been granted from extraterrestrial sources. This leaves several questions unanswered: Is this the same planet that the microscopic meteorite came from? And if so, does this mean that the meteor shower was not a natural phenomenon, but the work of intelligent life on that planet? How can an outside agent donate genes to another species? How can that agent accomplish this while escaping the gleeful discovery of millions of UFO enthusiasts? Furthermore, why would an outside civilization bother populating our planet but want nothing else to do with us?

If Hoyle had such a great scientific idea, why did he take his idea straight to the lay reader instead of submitting it to peer review? Probably because he knew it wouldn't do any good. On page 242, he predicts, quite correctly, that other scientists would reject his idea. This rejection, he says, would be more "dogmatic" than "scientific." Here on the Amazon site, there are other books arguing against Hoyle's brain child. If you are interested, you can read some of these books and decide for yourself.

Ironically, unorthodox science has rendered Hoyle as a victim as well as a perpetrator. Creationist Duane Gish has repeatedly quoted Hoyle as saying that the chances of life originating on earth are equal to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and coming out with a jumbo jet. Gish would have his readers and listeners believe that Hoyle has compiled statistics and arrived at a decimal figure. We find Hoyle's statement on pages 18-19, we find Hoyle's statement, and we find that he is making an analogy, not a statistical claim. Furthermore, we find Hoyle expressing resentment at being misquoted.

It does not take much time to read this book because half of the space is covered by illustrations. If you are a student who is assigned to make a book report, and if you want the teacher to think you did twice as much reading as you really did, this might be the book for you.

In this book, Fred Hoyle expresses an opinion which is rejected by most other scientists. He claims that all of life on our planet is descended from microbes which arrived in a meteor shower. Although other scientists say that a microbe could not survive the hot temperature which results from entering the atmosphere, Hoyle argues to the contrary.

If we progressed from microbes to humans, then one would think that life then proceeded according to Darwin's description, but Hoyle argues that such a process would be impossible. What he proposes as an alternative is not quite clear to me. On page 250, the next-to-the-last page of the book, he tells us that the microorganisms merged to create macroorganisms. However, on page 117, he says that our genes have been granted from extraterrestrial sources. This leaves several questions unanswered: Is this the same planet that the microscopic meteorite came from? And if so, does this mean that the meteor shower was not a natural phenomenon, but the work of intelligent life on that planet? How can an outside agent donate genes to another species? How can that agent accomplish this while escaping the gleeful discovery of millions of UFO enthusiasts? Furthermore, why would an outside civilization bother populating our planet but want nothing else to do with us?

If Hoyle had such a great scientific idea, why did he take his idea straight to the lay reader instead of submitting it to peer review? Probably because he knew it wouldn't do any good. On page 242, he predicts, quite correctly, that other scientists would reject his idea. This rejection, he says, would be more "dogmatic" than "scientific." Here on the Amazon site, there are other books arguing against Hoyle's brain child. If you are interested, you can read some of these books and decide for yourself.

Ironically, unorthodox science has rendered Hoyle as a victim as well as a perpetrator. Creationist Duane Gish has repeatedly quoted Hoyle as saying that the chances of life originating on earth are equal to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and coming out with a jumbo jet. Gish would have his readers and listeners believe that Hoyle has compiled statistics and arrived at a decimal figure. We find Hoyle's statement on pages 18-19, we find Hoyle's statement, and we find that he is making an analogy, not a statistical claim. Furthermore, we find Hoyle expressing resentment at being misquoted.

It does not take much time to read this book because half of the space is covered by illustrations. If you are a student who is assigned to make a book report, and if you want the teacher to think you did twice as much reading as you really did, this might be the book for you.

In this book, Fred Hoyle expresses an opinion which is rejected by most other scientists. He claims that all of life on our planet is descended from microbes which arrived in a meteor shower. Although other scientists say that a microbe could not survive the hot temperature which results from entering the atmosphere, Hoyle argues to the contrary.

If we progressed from microbes to humans, then one would think that life then proceeded according to Darwin's description, but Hoyle argues that such a process would be impossible. What he proposes as an alternative is not quite clear to me. On page 250, the next-to-the-last page of the book, he tells us that the microorganisms merged to create macroorganisms. However, on page 117, he says that our genes have been granted from extraterrestrial sources. This leaves several questions unanswered: Is this the same planet that the microscopic meteorite came from? And if so, does this mean that the meteor shower was not a natural phenomenon, but the work of intelligent life on that planet? How can an outside agent donate genes to another species? How can that agent accomplish this while escaping the gleeful discovery of millions of UFO enthusiasts? Furthermore, why would an outside civilization bother populating our planet but want nothing else to do with us?

If Hoyle had such a great scientific idea, why did he take his idea straight to the lay reader instead of submitting it to peer review? Probably because he knew it wouldn't do any good. On page 242, he predicts, quite correctly, that other scientists would reject his idea. This rejection, he says, would be more "dogmatic" than "scientific." Here on the Amazon site, there are other books arguing against Hoyle's brain child. If you are interested, you can read some of these books and decide for yourself.

Ironically, unorthodox science has rendered Hoyle as a victim as well as a perpetrator. Creationist Duane Gish has repeatedly quoted Hoyle as saying that the chances of life originating on earth are equal to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and coming out with a jumbo jet. Gish would have his readers and listeners believe that Hoyle has compiled statistics and arrived at a decimal figure. We find Hoyle's statement on pages 18-19, we find Hoyle's statement, and we find that he is making an analogy, not a statistical claim. Furthermore, we find Hoyle expressing resentment at being misquoted.

It does not take much time to read this book because half of the space is covered by illustrations. If you are a student who is assigned to make a book report, and if you want the teacher to think you did twice as much reading as you really did, this might be the book for you.

In this book, Fred Hoyle expresses an opinion which is rejected by most other scientists. He claims that all of life on our planet is descended from microbes which arrived in a meteor shower. Although other scientists say that a microbe could not survive the hot temperature which results from entering the atmosphere, Hoyle argues to the contrary.

If we progressed from microbes to humans, then one would think that life then proceeded according to Darwin's description, but Hoyle argues that such a process would be impossible. What he proposes as an alternative is not quite clear to me. On page 250, the next-to-the-last page of the book, he tells us that the microorganisms merged to create macroorganisms. However, on page 117, he says that our genes have been granted from extraterrestrial sources. This leaves several questions unanswered: Is this the same planet that the microscopic meteorite came from? And if so, does this mean that the meteor shower was not a natural phenomenon, but the work of intelligent life on that planet? How can an outside agent donate genes to another species? How can that agent accomplish this while escaping the gleeful discovery of millions of UFO enthusiasts? Furthermore, why would an outside civilization bother populating our planet but want nothing else to do with us?

If Hoyle had such a great scientific idea, why did he take his idea straight to the lay reader instead of submitting it to peer review? Probably because he knew it wouldn't do any good. On page 242, he predicts, quite correctly, that other scientists would reject his idea. This rejection, he says, would be more "dogmatic" than "scientific." Here on the Amazon site, there are other books arguing against Hoyle's brain child. If you are interested, you can read some of these books and decide for yourself.

Ironically, unorthodox science has rendered Hoyle as a victim as well as a perpetrator. Creationist Duane Gish has repeatedly quoted Hoyle as saying that the chances of life originating on earth are equal to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and coming out with a jumbo jet. Gish would have his readers and listeners believe that Hoyle has compiled statistics and arrived at a decimal figure. We find Hoyle's statement on pages 18-19, we find Hoyle's statement, and we find that he is making an analogy, not a statistical claim. Furthermore, we find Hoyle expressing resentment at being misquoted.