Sort of. Depends how you want to define it.
Science historian Michael Flannery notes,
I think it is a fair assessment to consider Hoyle a creationist in the broadest sense of the term. Yes, he rejected Darwinian evolution, and yes, he held to panspermia, but his book The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983) and other writings I think substantiate Theodore Walker’s assessment that Hoyle’s views accorded “with the religious idea of a supremely intelligent Creator-Provider-Sustainer of the universe” that was essentially panenthic and at least implicitly pro-theistic (see Walker’s “‘The Relation of Biology to Astronomy’ and Theology: Panspermia and Panentheism: Revolutionary Convergences Advanced by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe,” J. Cosmology19 [June 2012]). This may not be biblical creationism, but is a form of creationism.
New one on us, because Hoyle is usually billed as an atheist pure and simple.
Although Hoyle was most widely known for this cosmological theory, there is little doubt that his most lasting and significant contribution to science concerns the origin of the elements. This theory of nucleogenesis (the build-up of the elements in the hot interiors of stars) was an outstanding scientific landmark of the 1950s. In the development of this theory Hoyle collaborated with WA Fowler of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and with Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge.
There’s also an interesting story at the obit link above re speculation as to why Hoyle did not get the Nobel.