When Sane People Attack

Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle was a renowned atheist; after an accomplished career he looked into life and biological systems.  He was astonished what his so-called peers were alleging.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia 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 Cubes simultaneously.

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. 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 calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

                I am not a chemist, a physicist or a biologist-- and perhaps it is because I

                have no allegiances to any particular notion that this truth seems evident, even

                in the mind of a 'layman'. 

Hoyle, a lifelong atheist, anti-theist and Darwinist said that this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken.  It is said that “mainstream evolutionary biology rejects Hoyle’s interpretation of statistics”.  This is an interesting claim, for there is not a SINGLE BOOK IN EXISTENCE advocating the chemical auto-genesis of life that cites any statistics whatsoever.  Not one single book.  Precisely how does one reject the statistics of an astrophysicist without providing their own