In this book the authors attack the Earth-centric view that life originated in some virus-like form and simply evolved by natural selection. Arguing from the evidence of virology and epidemiology, they show that it is overwhelmingly likely that life originated outside the solar system, and propose that life-forms from space are constantly arriving to mingle with our own biosphere.
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most distinguished, creative, and controversial scientists of the twentieth century. He was a Fellow of St John’s College (1939-1972, Honorary Fellow 1973-2001), was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1957, held the Plumian Chair of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy (1958-1972), established the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy in Cambridge (now part of the Institute of Astronomy), and (in 1972) received a knighthood for his services to astronomy.
Hoyle was a keen mountain climber, an avid player of chess, a science fiction writer, a populariser of science, and the man who coined the phrase 'The Big Bang'.
I haven't finished this so I won't rate it yet. I plan to finish it eventually, but I'm not in the mood right now for a science book. I got about half way. I must admit that a lot of it is over my head. Fred Hoyle is clearly smarter than I am, especially as a mathematician. I did get his point usually though, and while his theory is not supported by mainstream science, he does use good science to make you think about it as a possibility. I did agree with him that mainstream science too often claims that a theory is fact and not just a theory and if you don't agree with that theory, you are shunned even if there is not 100% proof that the theory is true. Also, that scientists can believe a theory so wholeheartedly, Darwin's theory is the one looked at in this book, that they use their results to fit the theory instead of forming a theory based on the results.
The theory contained in this tome, which basically concerns comets being the originators of life on earth, is extremely interesting even if it may be incorrect. It has certainly been heavily criticised.
Hoyle and his co-author (shorter than writing his name out in full) set out the theory very clearly and the underlying science is well explained. Much of what is here is good science whatever the authors' conclusions might be.