“Hoyle thought life came from outer space. Where did that outer space life come from? He just moves the problem of origins one step back.”
I agree with you there, but the point is that he looked to space for the origin of life because he realized that it couldn’t have happened by random chance on earth.
If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.
What you need to realize about Hoyle, however, is even though he thought life originated in space, he still insisted that it couldn’t have come about by random chance. In other words, he didn’t think that pushing the origin of life into space would “improve the odds” of a random origin enough to make it even remotely likely. He believed — and demonstrated through basic mathematical reasoning — that the origin of life required ID.
As for the Discovery Institute, if they believe that life was intelligently designed, it is perfectly legitimate for them to promote that view regardless of what their ultimate agenda might be.
Suppose I was a doctor who believed that smoking causes lung and heart disease. If my ultimate “agenda” is to stop people from smoking, does that agenda taint my “theory” about the effects of smoking? According to your “reasoning,” the tobacco companies could legitimately dismiss the “theory” about the harmful effects of smoking because the doctors who are promoting it have an “agenda.” Nonsense.
Oh wait, suppose some of those doctors who promote the idea that smoking is dangerous do not explicitly announce that they want people to quit smoking. Are they dishonestly “hiding” their agenda? Yeah, right.
The problem with mathematical "reasoning" of this type is that you have to have a model. Models are often flawed, just look at Global Warming. Odds calculations are personal awe put into mathematical guesswork.
If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.
You may like to know that Crick later retracted that, admitting his view was overly pessimistic in light of later scientific discoveries.
Someone might want to remove Crick from the Creation Handbook of Rebuttals, filing it with the gross misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You're the second person on this thread to bring up this deceptive reference.
Wait a minute. I got confused. You aren't the second person to bring this up, it was you who brought it up both times.
You brought it up a second time after I already told you of Crick's retraction of that position in light of scientific advances. This is no longer a mistake, it is dishonesty to use materials known to be false.
What could I expect, it is coming from the ID movement, which is chock-full of lies, half-truths, out-of-context quotes and shoddy agenda-driven "research."