Of course, that's not the point. His views support doubts about evolution on Earth. Ann didn't put forward any theory of creationism, she merely said there's good reason to doubt the theory of evolution as an explanation for life on earth. Fred Hoyle's views lend considerable support to the doubt that Ann expresses.
WRONG. His views support evolution on earth. Read his book.
Hoyle's views on Abiogenesis, which Coulter freely conflates with Evolution, were based on faulty initial conditions in his probability calculations. Due to those errors his view lends nothing to the 'doubt' of Abiogenesis or Evolution.
We know far too little about the initial conditions required for the first pre/proto-life to form, how can we possibly produce accurate calculations?
Most Abiogenesis probability calculations are based on a fairly large complex chemical strand of amino acids spontaneously combining in a specific order. It is as if only one possible combination would work. Scientists do not expect that the origin of life was remotely like that - complexity was built up slowly through replication errors. This single point throws Hoyle's calculations out the window. We haven't even considered the number of trials, the number of possible successful combinations of amino acids (both order and length), and the fact that the first trial has roughly the same probability to be successful as the last.
Probability calculations for abiogenesis are meaningless without far more information and a more realistic approach. Even then a posteriori probability calculations in a case such as this are misleading.
Ex. If you were to shuffle a deck of cards, any order you come up with will have a probability of 1.24-68 yet you successfully managed the feat.