Fred Hoyle's The Intelligent Universe

Foreword

1: Chance and the Universe

This chapter contains the often quoted claim that the chance that the 2000 universal house-keeping enzymes originate from random processes is 1 : 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ (these enzymes are crucial for life) [4].
Are there many possible biochemistries ? If so, then the problem is easier. Hoyle's answer is 'NO' because those 2000 reactions are determined by the properties of Carbon atom, and so our biochemistry is literally universal and alternatives are non-existent [5].
Hoyle attacks the primordial soup idea. Enzymes are never produced in soup conditions in the lab. Next follows the famous Boeing-747 story. He imagines how molecules could make useful combinations in a primordial soup, and concludes that this scenario would only work if an intelligence made the choices and combinations [6]. If proteins spontaneously originate, they should easily have been reproduced in the lab! And if the experiment would have succeeded it would have been well-known and famous throughout the world!
"In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on Earth." Continuing unconditionally: "life did not appear by chance", however also suggesting that our theories of the origin of life are too geo-centric [7].

[1] The addition 'on Earth' makes a great difference of course! We will return to this.

[2] Hoyle does not mention that this example is from Julian Huxley (evolutionist). The Shakespeare example was also refuted by David Foster (1993) chapter 10. According to wikipedia the French mathematician Emile Borel is the inventor.

[3] Hoyle does not compare it with the age of the universe. So we don't know if Hoyle accepts a naturalistic origin of life. The following points invalidate the cube analogy:
a) one second as the unit of the trial is too long, considering chemical reaction times are in the order of femtoseconds = 10^-15 seconds (the scientist Ahmed Zewail received the Nobel Prize 1999 for research in this area).
b) taking a human cell is not right, because according to Maynard Smith we have 60 – 80,000 genes and first life could have as low as 500 – 2000 genes. Hoyle wrongly uses 'genetic code' as the information in DNA (p13).
c) Hoyle bases his calculation on 20 different amino acids. Wrong. It is now thought that the original genetic code started with 7 amino acids (see Yockey (1992), p183).

[4] Hoyle ignores that each enzym can be coded for by many different codes because the genetic code is redundant. For example, a protein of 20 amino acids can be coded for by 340 million different codes and if stopcodon is included by 1,02 billion ways (Caporale, 2003, p.30). Furthermore, not every amino acid has an unique function, some are interchangeable without loss of function of the protein. However, the only way to make progress are experimental investigations. A splendid example is: (6) [ updated 9 Mar 2006]

[5] This looks like the fine tuning argument: Carbon is fine-tuned to create life. This argument is anti Stuart Kauffman and pro fine-tuners like Michael Denton. Hoyle's presentation of the argument is very short, and not elaborated.

[6] This conclusion is almost defining Intelligent Design Theorists today.

[7] Hoyle still is not clear if chance excludes also the spontaneous origin of life in the universe!

2: The Gospel According To Darwin

Fossils, fossils, and fossils...

   Darwin propagandists told the public and other non-biologist scientists that the fossil record supports Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet the situation was quite otherwise. The famous horse series could be explained by nutrition [15]. There is no evidence of step-by-step changes in insects and there are more than enough insects in the fossil record. The famous Archaeopteryx, half reptile and half bird, is not enough evidence for a link between reptiles and birds [16]. "The Darwinian theory is wrong because random variations tend to worsen performance". An explanation that accounts for the facts just as well is the sudden arrival of genes from space [17].

[8] Hoyle forgot to mention that the news came by letters of van Leeuwenhoek (Dutch) himself, in which Van Leeuwenhoek described all his observations he made himself with his microscopes, and which were published in the proceedings of the Royal Society. So Van Leeuwenhoek did not only invent the microscope but observed for the first time ever sperm, and all kinds of little animals no human eye had ever seen before.

[9] This is an external (opposed to internal) explanation of scientific change. It's remarkable for the scientist Hoyle to ignore scientific facts themselves as the most important triggers for scientific change!

[10] See for identical point of view in Dempster and most other Darwin-critics.

[11] It's mysterious why Hoyle finds it useful to mention the tautology, while he knows that natural selection can be defined in exact mathematical terms, as he himself did in the Mathematics of Evolution.

[12] A beautiful analogy on its own, it shows at the same time that Hoyle is focussed on 'intelligence' and 'outside intervention', so characteristic of Intelligent Design Theorists! The illustration on page 37 depicts something like what biologists call sympatric speciation. Hoyle does not know about allopatric speciation. Hoyle's analogy is wrong. Temperature differences originate between rocks and earth, despite the same solar energy input. No intelligence is needed for that.

[13] These are important ideas elaborated mathematically in his Mathematics of Evolution. However 10 small beneficial mutations could equal 1 big beneficial mutation and 10 small harmful mutations could add up to 1 big harmful mutation and consequently can be selected for or against groupwise. Especially when they are positioned on the same chromosome they can easily be eliminated or selected as a group.
The picture on page 34 shows people with only two toes on each foot as an example of a mutation in humans. While I was reading this book, a publication in Cell appeared which reported the discovery of the gene responsible for the condition, the P63-gene. It is dominant, not lethal and is inherited in 50% of the children of a patient.

[14] These examples are told in a few words and not examined in any depth, a serious omission for a scientist. Why show them and not give them more space then 1 page? I wonder where he got the examples. Hoyle does not say those unsolved problems refute Darwinism. However I think it's unreasonable to demand from a scientist to have an immediate answer to every question that can be asked. Science exists by virtue of unanswered questions. Outsiders easily get the impression that science has answers to all questions and evolu­tionists fail because they don't have an answer to every question. In a popular book it is surely not necessary to make such misleading suggestions. Please note that the unsolved problems are instances of Irreducible Complexity, a term which was introduced by Michael Behe 13 years after the publication of Hoyle's book.

[15] No references or details are given for this claim. There aren't any references to scientific books or journals at all in The Intelligent Universe.

[16] Please note Hoyle does not talk about forgery at all! Hoyle and Wickramasinghe published in 1987 'Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A Case of Fossil Forgery'.

[17] Evolution on Earth can only profit from genes from space if they have exactly the same genetic code. I showed in this review that this is extremely unlikely.

3: Life did not originate on Earth

[18] The title of the chapter does not describe the contents of the chapter. It should be something like: "evidence for life outside the Earth". How could comets and meteorites prove that life did not originate on Earth? They could add lifeforms. Evidence from meteorites is not sufficient to prove that life did not originate on the Earth. Hoyle's argument is not very careful here.

[18a] "Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, British astronomers, announced in 1986 that the AIDS virus came from outer space." from Laurie Garrett (1994) The Coming Plague. [Hoyle, Wickramasinghe and Watkins (1986) Viruses from Space.]

4: The interstellar connection

"There is no possibility, for example, of the eggs of birds passing safely through the atmosphere from space, so that birds must have arisen by evolution here on the Earth" (p. 91) [20].

[20] The flying bird's egg is besides extremely funny also revealing about Hoyle's reasoning: birds did evolve. So what about Hoyle's Archaeopteryx forgery claim? What about intermediates between birds and reptiles? Hoyle's logic is here the same as the standard evolutionist logic!

[21] Space is hostile to life as Hoyle notes: X-rays and UV-rays are destructive for life. Space is not an optimal environment for life.
While I was preparing this review an important article appeared in Science (1) about Deinococcus radiodurans [old classification: Micrococcus] which is the most radiation resistant organism on Earth. The bacterium does not have some mysterious property. Since radiation induces DNA damage, the damage needs to be repaired. All organisms have repair mechanisms, but this bacterium has very efficient DNA-repair machinery, such as many 'redundant' copies of the repair-genes plus additional mechanisms that help the repair process. The bacterium is found in radiated canned food, medical equipment sterilised by radiation and a lot of 'normal' environments. It seems that the trick is accumulation of all kind of the genes that do the job. "Its resistence to ionizing radiation is coupled with a more general resistance to other types of physical stress, including ultraviolet radiation, hydrogen peroxide, heat, desiccation and a variety of toxins" (5). So this is not necessarily an adapatation for space environments but may be an adaptation to radioactive environments on earth. Besides that how could the bacterium be genetically close related to Thermus thermophilus, a heat loving bacterium? One needs more data than the above, but it's clear that the remarkable properties of this bacterium do not necessarily come from space (8). It seems plausible that mutation and selection can explain in principle this extreme adaptation.
Even if Hoyle showed that it must come from space, then still there is the question of the mechanism: how did that extreme adaptation originate in space? By conventional Darwinian mutation and selection processes in space? See also the amazing story about tardigrades (2).

[22] It's unbelievable that no genetic analysis was performed of the cultured cells! Information about the genetic code of these bacteria would be of exceptional scientific importance. It would be relatively easy to establish if the genetic code was different from our terrestrial code. These cells could have been the first ever living extraterrestrials on Earth.

5: Evolution by cosmic control

Darwinism is an Earth-bound theory. The information content of life on Earth comes from space. Since the universe is bigger and older than the Earth, the chances are better for the origin of life in space [23]. Mutations are not the driving force of evolution on Earth as Darwinians think. Genes from space are good and don't need any improvement. Anyway mutations are nearly always harmful. DNA is stable. Darwinian evolution is extremely slow. To produce a specific chain of 10 amino acids would take a million generations, assuming a population of one hundred million individuals and the standard mutation frequency. A protein of 100 amino acids long could not be produced [24]. Hoyle concludes that the situation for the neo-Darwinian theory is evidently hopeless [25].

"Large multicellular animals cannot withstand unearthly conditions [ -418°F or -250°C ] as micro-organisms can, a sure indication of their very different origins." p. 117 [26]

[23] Hoyle does not calculate the odds of life originating in space at all. See also Chapter 10.

[24] This sounds impressive. However every spoonful of garden soil contains some 10¹⁰ bacteria. There are a lot of spoonfuls of soil on our planet. According to Hoyle's own account (p. 113) a bacterium can produce millions of offspring within a few days. So Hoyle's protein with 10 amino acids would not be a problem and larger proteins would also be possible. The question is however: are proteins with 100 amino acids easily assembled in the rest of the universe? Hoyle forgot to say YES or NO.

[25] What Hoyle means of course is: neo-Darwinism restricted to the Earth! If Earth-DNA is stable AND it originated from space, then space-DNA is also stable and has a low mutation frequency. So Hoyle is misguided in attacking neo-Darwinism. The only thing he needs to attack is that neo-Darwinism is an Earthbound process. Furthermore he doesn't seem to reject Common Descent completely. So this give him the complete freedom to let it rain genes from space and let common descent do the rest.

[26] But this inference is not valid if Hoyle believes that the information content of all life came from space. So why did multicellular organisms not inherit those cold resistance genes from monocellular organisms?

[27] Because Hoyle has limited biological knowledge, he cannot think of neo-Darwinist explanations. Conclusion: The cosmic 'control', if present, does not look very efficient or directed. How could a rain of random cosmic genes control something? Exactly where do the genes come from? what distances? how do they find their way from the Earth's atmosphere to the target organism? Maybe 'control' hints at something in chapters 8-10.

6: Why aren't the others here?

[28] These isolated, unexpected remarks show Hoyle's belief in a superior controlling intelligence in the universe, a characteristic of IDT's and creationists (f.e. Remine).

[29] This throws doubt on his earlier argument that radio-resistance proves extraterrestrial origin. If radio-resistance is a naturally occurring variation than natural selection could produce such species as Micrococcus radiophilus in nuclear reactors. This is impressively supported by the article in Science (1).

7: After the Big Bang

[30] Hoyle gives an unprecedented honest account of the refutation of 'his' Steady State theory! This is an impressive example of scientific integrity: Hoyle explains why his own Steady State theory fails.

8: The information-rich Universe

9: What is Intelligence up to?

[31] However other planets are not suited for our needs! It's no wonder that the Earth is suited for our needs. Hoyle himself thinks cosmic genes are selected by the environment of the Earth. So the "fine-tuning" is partly done by Hoyle's version of natural selection.

[32] I find this hostility to the Anthropic Principle (with its perceived purposelessness) always puzzling. The Anthropic Principle is based on the amazing number of fundamental properties of atoms and stars (our sun) that are essential for the existence of life, thereby connecting us and all life on Earth to the rest of the universe. Which is a new and valuable contribution to our worldview. A number of creationist writers have incorporated this negative attitude to the Anthropic Principle in their thinking.

10: The Intelligent Universe

[33] This means that his Panspermia hypothesis is not a solution to the problem of the origin of life. This claim is the best evidence that Hoyle is an IDT and rejects naturalism. See also: [23].

[34] Dawkins computer programs, and evolutionary algorithms proof otherwise. This is a serious omission of Hoyle.

[35] Here Hoyle's emotional and moral motives for the battle against Darwinism surface. No evidence is given for these extraordinary claims. If Darwinism is morally bad, then Nature is morally bad, because Darwinism describes Nature as it is. The misuse of the theory should be attacked, not the theory. 'Value' does not follow from 'fact' and 'ought' does not follow from 'is'.

[36] That's a difference between Hoyle and creationists.

Conclusion

In the last chapter Hoyle concludes without any calculation that even on a cosmic scale it is unlikely that life arose from non-living matter. Subsequently Hoyle replaces Panspermia with the vague and speculative 'intelligent control' theory. Intelligent control is not an afterthought. Its importance for Hoyle is reflected in the title of the book. If Panspermia were the most important The Living Universe would be more appropriate. 'The Intelligent Universe' appears to be a mix of good and bad Darwin-criticism, an alternative evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design Theory, driven by a mix of scientific, moral and religious (3) motives. Hoyle's theories range from closely connected to data to highly abstract and speculative. In this book Hoyle appears to be a forerunner of Creationism and IDT (4). This book was published two years before Denton (1985): 'Evolution. A Theory in crisis', which inspired many creationists. I did give a detailed summary of The Intelligent Universe because the book is not available anymore, and is an important source for now famous anti-Darwinism arguments such as the Boeing-747 analogy.

Notes

1. Owen White et al (1999) Genome Sequence of the Radioresistant Bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans R1, Science Nov 19 1999: 1571-1577.
2. Jon Copley: "Indestructible", New Scientist 23 Oct 1999, p45-46.
   Tardigrades can withstand pressures six times greater than those at the bottom of the ocean and endure temperatures ranging from more than 100°C down to absolute zero; can shrug off lethal radiation, survive in a vacuum and go without water for more than a century.
3. According to Robert Shapiro (1986) Origins. A Skeptic Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, p245, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe moved from a scientific to an "essentially religious position in the 1980s". Shapiro gives a useful overview of the work of H & W in Chapter nine.
4. see Dean Overman (1997): "By his own admission, Hoyle's atheism was dramatically disturbed when he calculated the odds against these precisely matched resonances existing by chance", p129. However Hoyle did not start as an atheist, on the contrary. Hoyle had a christian education. See for an opposite 'admission' the Preface of his The Mathematics of Evolution.
5. Nick Lane (2002) Oxygen. The Molecule that made the World, pp 125-127. See also: Susan T. Lovett (2006) 'Resurrecting a broken genome', Nature Vol 443, 5 October 2006 p.517–519.
6. A surprising new theory and experimental findings by Hauke Trinks who proposes that life began in sea ice: Nature 2 March 2006.
7. A team of Russian and American scientists proposed that the radioresistance of D. radiodurans had a Martian origin. Evolution of the microorganism could have taken place on the Martian surface until it was delivered to Earth on a meteorite: Pavlov AK, Kalinin VL, Konstantinov AN, Shelegedin VN, Pavlov AA (2006). "Was Earth ever infected by martian biota? Clues from radioresistant bacteria" (PDF). Astrobiology 6 (6): 911–918. So, afterall, Hoyle is not alone. According to wikipedia: "However, apart from its resistance to radiation, Deinococcus is genetically and biochemically very similar to other terrestrial life forms, arguing against an extraterrestrial origin". [ 17 Dec 2013 ]
8. Another possibility is that gamma-ray bursts would convert some nitrogen and oxygen in the earth's atmosphere into nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen oxides destroy the ozone layer, exposing Earth to more of the Sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. See: Gamma-ray burst linked to mass extinction, Nature 24 September 2003. [ 29 Jun 2014 ]

Further Reading

• COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia by Brig Klyce. Contains all scientific support for the panspermia theory and is kept up-to-date by the owner.
• My review of Fred Hoyle's The Mathematics of Evolution on this site.
• Gert Korthof: Fred Hoyle's Boeing-story in the Evolution/Creation literature on this site.
• Francis Crick (1981) Life Itself. Its Origin and Nature (hardback, Simon and Schuster, 192 pages). In this book Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick proposes the theory of 'Directed Panspermia'. One of the rare books focussed on panspermia.
• Lynn Helena Caporale (2003) Darwin in the genome. Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution
• E.O. Wilson thinks panspermia is likely on site COSMIC ANCESTRY, 10 May 2007.
• Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe (1984) Evolution from Space, Touchstone; 1st edition, 192 pages. (still available from amazon Dec 2013)
• Fred Hoyle (1988) Intelligent Universe. A new view of creation and evolution Publisher: Book Sales, Hardcover: 256 pages. This is a re-edition of the book reviewed on this page.
• Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe (1993) Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution Paperback, New edition, 208 pages. Contents listing available at amazon.
• Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe (2000) Astronomical Origins of Life. Steps Towards Panspermia Kluwer Academic Publishers, 389 pages. A collection of articles reprinted from ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE, 268:1-3 1999. See: Preface 'Look Inside' amazon.
• My review of Clive Trotman (2004) The Feathered Onion - Creation of Life in the Universe defends panspermia.