Additional note: Although Hoyle was an atheist at the time of his greatest work (the B2FH paper) thanks to "Minttzz" correcting me, it turns out that later on Hoyle became a deist. I had always wondered why such a great mind as his was able to come up with such a load of bollocks as the "hurricane in the junkyard" analogy. The answer now seems clear to me. He didn't WANT to believe in abiogenesis. If he thought the "junkyard" was an accurate understanding of the problem NO WONDER he didn't believe it! It seems this genius thought abiogenesis was evidence against a creator. The fact that abiogenesis fits all we know about the "evolution" of matter since the big bang (PLUS the latest findings in the link above), and evolution is backed by so many facts as to be, to my mind, a fact itself, then this deistic genius is indirectly conceding that gods very likely do not exist.
Hoyle criticized creationists yet, oddly enough, would have found himself on the same side in many arguments.
"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men...To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."