"Hoyle and Wickramasinghe deny the creator is the traditional supernatural God. They envision a creator within the total cosmos. They contend that a flaw in logic kept generations of scientists from seeing the truth that intelligence is the authentic source of the information in the biological world." (TMoLO, p. 197)

"The whole of the special creation theory was thought to be wrong and there was a general revulsion among scientists against it. In effect, because the details were seen to be incorrect, the fundamental idea that life was created by an intelligence was also rejected." (EFS, p.130)

In an Epilogue, they considered some possible alternatives. In the section on Panspermia, they credit Hoyle and Wickramasinghe for reviving interest in that idea, but they also observe that although Panspermia might address the origin of life on earth, by itself it does not explain the origin of life. The research has revealed objections that still apply to unguided origins, even if one moves the location to somewhere else (e.g. p. 193,194).

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are brought up again in more detail in the section on Special Creation by a Creator Within the Cosmos:

Hoyle and Wickramashinghe have developed a novel and creative argument, which we shall present in some detail. As will be seen, the view of intelligence creating biological specificity comes in not one, but two types: (1) a creating intelligence within the cosmos, and (2) a creating intelligence beyond the cosmos. In arguing for the former, Hoyle and Wickramshinghe contend that Darwinism has failed to account for the origin of life and the development of terrestial biology. (p. 196)

Thus, in a broad sense one might defend referring to them as "creationists", but given the YEC connotations firmly attached to that term, it would be misleading. They are referring to a creating intelligence within the cosmos, which is another way of saying designing intelligence. ID does not necessarily mean "supernatural". The focus is on intentional, designed activity by intelligence in contrast to unguided natural processes.

"The correct position we think is…an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life…."

"Indeed, such a theory" [the theory that life was assembled by an intelligence] "is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."

"The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own."

— Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space

And did none of you find the Hoyle interview in Scientific American (March 1995)?

Yes, I just found and read it here at the library. Hoyle didn't recant a single word.

Now, edarrell, where exactly did Wickramasinghe recant? And was he repudiating YEC, or the intelligent design of carbonaceous life?

edarrell said: "There's nothing much there for intelligent design; …it's pretty weak tea as support for intelligent design."

If you replaced "intelligent design" with "young earth creationism", your statement would be correct. But as it is, I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from their position. I thought their position (see also earlier statements) was quite clear about the fact that

Life could not be an accident, not just on the Earth alone, but anywhere, anywhere at all in the Universe.

Consequently, unless the universe and life are both eternal, they hold that the remaining conclusion is that it is designed. The position of ID is that life is an instance of a feature of the universe that is best explained by an intelligent cause. Unless life has been eternal, life is designed.

This is exactly in line with the ID position. As the court also observed, it is "weak tea" only for the YEC position.

And did none of you find the Hoyle interview in Scientific American (March 1995)?

Here's an excerpt from Judge Overton's decision in McLean v. Arkansas:

In efforts to establish "evidence" in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach contained in Section 4, i.e., all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science. For example, the defendants established that the mathematical probability of a chance chemical combination resulting in life from non-life is so remote that such an occurrence is almost beyond imagination. Those mathematical facts, the defendants argue, are scientific evidences that life was the product of a creator. While the statistical figures may be impressive evidence against the theory of chance chemical combinations as an explanation of origins, it requires a leap of faith to interpret those figures so as to support a complex doctrine which includes a sudden creation from nothing, a worldwide flood, separate ancestry of man and apes, and a young earth.

The defendants' argument would be more persuasive if, in fact, there were only two theories or ideas about the origins of life and the world. That there are a number of theories was acknowledged by the State's witnesses, Dr. Wickramasinghe and Dr. Geisler. Dr. Wickramasinghe testified at length in support of a theory that life on earth was "seeded" by comets which delivered genetic material and perhaps organisms to the earth's surface from interstellar dust far outside the solar system. The "seeding" theory further hypothesizes that the earth remains under the continuing influence of genetic material from space which continues to affect life. While Wickramasinghe's theory (n29) about the origins of life on earth has not received general acceptance within the scientific community, he has, at least, used scientific methodology to produce a theory of origins which meets the essential characteristics of science.

Perhaps Dr. Wickramasinghe was called as a witness because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old.

[Note 29: The theory is detailed in Wickramasinghe's book with Sir Fred Hoyle, Evolution From Space (1981), which is Dx 79.]

There's nothing much there for intelligent design; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe argued that they didn't think there was time for evolution to proceed so far as it has on Earth, so they conjectured that evolution started somewhere else, and live arrived on Earth already far down the path of evolution.

The only concession they made to intelligent design would have been their note that it was possible that an alien intelligence intended to seed life here, that the seeding was not wholly accident.

That's no blow to evolution, of course, and it's pretty weak tea as support for intelligent design.

Nick, can you pull out the text of Hoyle's profile in Sci Am? My files were two computer crashes ago, and I'm not finding them quickly.

My own philosophical preference is for an essentially eternal, boundless Universe, wherein a creator of life somehow emerges in a natural way.

Two sentences later:

In the present state of our knowledge about life and about the Universe, an emphatic denial of some form of creation as an explanation for the origin of life implies a blindness to fact and an arrogance that cannot be condoned.

Could somebody reconcile these two statements for me?

Life could not be an accident, not just on the Earth alone, but anywhere, anywhere at all in the Universe. The facts as we now see them point to one of two distinct conclusions: an act of deliberate creation, or an indelible permanence of the patterns of life in a Universe that is eternal and boundless. For those who accept modern cosmological views as gospel truth, the latter alternative might be thought unlikely, and so one might be driven inescapably to accept life as being an act of deliberate creation. Creation would then be brought into the realm of empirical science. The notion of a creator placed outside the Universe poses logical difficulties, and is not one to which I can easily subscribe. My own philosophical preference is for an essentially eternal, boundless Universe, wherein a creator of life somehow emerges in a natural way. My colleague, Sir Fred Hoyle, has also expressed a similar preference. In the present state of our knowledge about life and about the Universe, an emphatic denial of some form of creation as an explanation for the origin of life implies a blindness to fact and an arrogance that cannot be condoned.

So he (and presumably Hoyle) agree that the creator of life is not supernatural, but are vague on what the creator of life within the universe exactly is.