Once I Had Learnt My

On Scientific Grounds This Big Bang Assumption Is Much Less The Palatable Of The Two. For It Is An Irrational Process That Cannot Be Described In Scientific Terms. . . . On Philosophical Grounds Too I Cannot See Any Good Reason For Preferring The Big Bang Idea. Indeed It Seems To Me In The Philosophical Sense To Be A Distinctly Unsatisfactory Notion, Since It Puts The Basic Assumption Out Of Sight Where It Can Never Be Challenged By A Direct Appeal To Observation.

It Is The True Nature Of Mankind To Learn From Mistakes, Not From Example.

Once A Photograph Of The Earth, Taken From Outside, Is Available, Once The Sheer Isolation Of The Earth Becomes Known, A New Idea As Powerful As Any In History Will Be Let Loose.

The Likelihood Of The Formation Of Life From Inanimate Matter Is 1 To A Number With 40,000 Noughts After It (1040,000).... It Is Big Enough To Bury Darwin And The Whole Theory Of Evolution. There Was No Primeval Soup, Neither On This Planet Nor Any Other, And If The Beginnings Of Life Were Not Random, They Must Therefore Have Been The Product Of Purposeful Intelligence.

The Suggestion That Petroleum Might Have Arisen From Some Transformation Of Squashed Fish Or Biological Detritus Is Surely The Silliest Notion To Have Been Entertained By Substantial Numbers Of Persons Over An Extended Period Of Time.