It Is No More Likely That Our

In The Popular Mind, If Hoyle Is Remembered It Is As The Prime Mover Of The Discredited Steady State Theory Of The Universe. "everybody Knows" That The Rival Big Bang Theory Won The Battle Of The Cosmologies, But Few (not Even Astronomers) Appreciate That The Mathematical Formalism Of The Now-favoured Version Of Big Bang, Called Inflation, Is Identical To Hoyle's Version Of The Steady State Model.

The Chance That Higher Life Forms Might Have Emerged Through Evolutionary Processes Is Comparable With The Chance That A Tornado Sweeping Through A Junk Yard Might Assemble A Boeing 747 From The Material Therein.

I Don't See The Logic Of Rejecting Data Just Because They Seem Incredible ... The Establishment Defends Itself By Complicating Everything To The Point Of Incomprehensibility.

The Man Who Voyages Strange Seas Must Of Necessity Be A Little Unsure Of Himself. It Is The Man With The Flashy Air Of Knowing Everything, Who Is Always With It, That We Should Beware Of.

On Scientific Grounds This Big Bang Assumption Is Much Less The Palatable Of The Two. For It Is An Irrational Process That Cannot Be Described In Scientific Terms. . . . On Philosophical Grounds Too I Cannot See Any Good Reason For Preferring The Big Bang Idea. Indeed It Seems To Me In The Philosophical Sense To Be A Distinctly Unsatisfactory Notion, Since It Puts The Basic Assumption Out Of Sight Where It Can Never Be Challenged By A Direct Appeal To Observation.