What do you think?
The Neck of the Giraffe
Analyzes current criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution, including creationism and new alternatives to natural selection
258 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 17, 2015
Excellent criticism of Classical and NeoDarwinism.
Firstly, I think this book is a little above most people's heads, including it seems a very famous evolutionist and atheist, who basically, and perhaps foolishly called it a silly book.
Despite what people think, Hitching is a Darwinist. However he spends the book poking holes in various arguments, and quite rightly too. =) I notice that in recent years, evolution is moving increasingly towards a hybrid of Neodarwinism with Lamarckism. Hitching rocks!
Looking over reviews online, many have simply failed to understand the arguments in this work, so it is little wonder that Hitching seems to have stopped bothering to write books. (His books are excellent!) He also writes from the background of an ancient mysteries author, incorporating many ideas into a fascinating synthesis.
He even deconstructs the psychological background to the voyage on the Beagle, saying that Darwin was confined with an insane sea captain for five years, forced to listen to Biblical tales; Darwin himself developing psychosomatic symptoms.
I see no problem with the hole-poking that Hitching does. It is both educating and informative and better than the hero-worship of many authors who concentrate upon the man and his orthodox legacy instead of the wider scope of reality.
Hitching is right, there are HUGE, gaping holes in both Darwinism and Neodarwinism, but they will both work well with an as-yet-unknown mechanism. I recommend a great book: The Living Stream, by Hardy, which points to some of these holes, explaining perhaps the sideways reluctance of Darwin to publish for many years.
Charles Kos, author of "In Search of the Origin of Pyramids and the Lost Gods of Giza."
Firstly, I think this book is a little above most people's heads, including it seems a very famous evolutionist and atheist, who basically, and perhaps foolishly called it a silly book.
Despite what people think, Hitching is a Darwinist. However he spends the book poking holes in various arguments, and quite rightly too. =) I notice that in recent years, evolution is moving increasingly towards a hybrid of Neodarwinism with Lamarckism. Hitching rocks!
Looking over reviews online, many have simply failed to understand the arguments in this work, so it is little wonder that Hitching seems to have stopped bothering to write books. (His books are excellent!) He also writes from the background of an ancient mysteries author, incorporating many ideas into a fascinating synthesis.
He even deconstructs the psychological background to the voyage on the Beagle, saying that Darwin was confined with an insane sea captain for five years, forced to listen to Biblical tales; Darwin himself developing psychosomatic symptoms.
I see no problem with the hole-poking that Hitching does. It is both educating and informative and better than the hero-worship of many authors who concentrate upon the man and his orthodox legacy instead of the wider scope of reality.
Hitching is right, there are HUGE, gaping holes in both Darwinism and Neodarwinism, but they will both work well with an as-yet-unknown mechanism. I recommend a great book: The Living Stream, by Hardy, which points to some of these holes, explaining perhaps the sideways reluctance of Darwin to publish for many years.
Charles Kos, author of "In Search of the Origin of Pyramids and the Lost Gods of Giza."
March 15, 2023
A PENETRATING CRITIQUE OF THE NEO-DARWINIAN MODEL OF EVOLUTION
John Francis Hitching (1933–2018) was a British author, dowser, journalist and filmmaker. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1982 book, “Darwinism is under assault on many fronts. It seems an appropriate moment for an outsider to inquire how, truly, ‘The Origin of Species’ has passed the test of time… This book is written from the standpoint of a neutralist passing through the battlefield, attempting to discern where the victory will be… For many years not… it has been taken for granted that Darwin had solved the question once and for all. But had he?... I found many scientists with private doubts; rather fewer who had come out with them in public; and a handful who went so far as to say that Darwinism evolutionary theory had turned out not to be scientific theory at all… Darwin’s theory of how evolution had happened may now be … vulnerable, and a concept even more profound waiting to some on stage.”
In the first chapter, he states, “Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don’t. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact… the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms… On the other hand Darwinism… is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved.” (Pg. 4)
He notes, “there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there: at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt…. Yet there are lengthy periods of history when there is every reason to expect plenty of intermediates… groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seeming from nowhere… They are not negligible gaps. They are periods … when immense physiological changes had to take place. A couple of examples… One, how did fish become amphibians?... There are many associated changes of enormous complexity and difficulty, such as gills being transformed into lungs… Two, how did mammals evolve their jaw? The change between the reptile jaw and the mammal jaw is profound…” (Pg. 10-11)
He explains, “one of the insights of ‘The Origin of Species’ [was] to recognize that nature… might encourage ‘improvements’ in the same sort of way as the farmer breeds better and larger pigs, horses, cattle… Although Darwin and his successors have invoked these … as evidence of evolution, breeders with practical experience flatly disagree… there are limits to the development possible. The reason for reaching these evolutionary dead ends is not hard to find: the genetic code in each living thing has its own built-in limitations. It is designed to STOP a plant or creature stepping too far away from the average.” (Pg. 38-39)
Of origin-of-life experiments, he comments, “overall the experiments seem to show conclusively that relatively complicated---although still lifeless---chemicals can arise ‘spontaneously’ from simple ones. There is also the possibility that … organic compounds exist in outer space, and arrived from there to colonize Earth.” (Pg. 46-47)
Of the utility of ‘transitional’ structures, he states, “to return to … the human eye… talking about pre-adaptation is simply a way of avoiding the issue… if not sight, what else? It is unreasonable to ask for a speculative evolutionary scenario for every single novel creature and organ that appears suddenly in the fossil record, but the most obvious and daunting ones continue to stare us in the face, unexplained.” (Pg. 82-83)
Turning to creationism, he recounts, “however well-meaning the scientific creationists may be, the straightjacket of Genesis 1-11 is so restricting that to make ALL evolutionary facts fit within it is … ends in a perversion of science. Duane Gish and others of his standing are well aware of this problem, but in the end they let their faith override it. When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science… he answered… that it was the apparently great age of the Earth as shown by … radiometric dating; and that the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages---the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles… It was possible to see these as self-contained epochs succeeding one another, whereas the Bible said they were laid down during the single episode of the Flood.” (Pg. 97-100)
He points out, “The extraordinary thing is that… the marsupials of Australia have evolved in a remarkably similar way to the placental mammals in the rest of the world… Why should the Tasmanian wolf not have, for instance, more teeth, or bigger eyes, or longer claws, or larger ears, or any of a myriad of other evolutionary possibilities?... Simply, it is far more probable that there is some kind ow wolf ‘blueprint’ that determines they shall evolve as wolves… there are certain built-in rules that permit a great amount of variation, but only in limited directions on a limited number of themes.” (Pg. 150-151)
He explains, “[Ilya] Prigogene’s revolutionary contribution has been to show that as a result of this instability, open structures are continually poised to evolve into something more complex. He has demonstrated mathematically how the fluctuations and pulsations feed back upon themselves… with each new state there is a higher degree of complexity, and therefore… even more potential for change… Citing a number of spectacular chemical phenomena where random patterns … can arise spontaneously under certain conditions, he proposed that something of the same sort must have happened to establish the original genetic code.” (Pg. 162)
He summarizes, “So where does this leave the search for man’s origins?... It is certainly more complicated than the straight-line-of-descent people would have us believe---more a bush than a ladder… The biggest change in thinking since Darwin’s time has been the abandonment of a search for the Missing Link between ourselves and apes. Instead, the hunt is on for the Common Ancestor.” (Pg. 192)
He concludes, “If gradualism goes, and the pattern is revealed as one of sudden leaps, a new mechanism for change is needed… [Such as] hopeful monsters, embryological change, chromosomal jumps, laws of biological form… There are signs that this process of absorption is taking place once more. The modern synthesists… are pointing out that ideas concerning the development of form, and differing rates of change, were put forward in their writings… Darwin, I feel sure, would have felt happier with the new approach… Darwin and the great naturalists of Victorian times never lost sight of the creative wonder of nature as a whole… [Darwin] concludes, ‘There is grandeur in this view of life… having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.’ The new biology is looking afresh at living things… [If] natural selection has been tested and found wanting… Darwin would not have minded. Science is a voyage of discovery, and beyond each horizon there is another.” (Pg. 224-226)
This book will be of great interest to critics of the traditional concept of evolution, although Hitching’s suggestions of a ‘new biology’ lack substance.
John Francis Hitching (1933–2018) was a British author, dowser, journalist and filmmaker. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1982 book, “Darwinism is under assault on many fronts. It seems an appropriate moment for an outsider to inquire how, truly, ‘The Origin of Species’ has passed the test of time… This book is written from the standpoint of a neutralist passing through the battlefield, attempting to discern where the victory will be… For many years not… it has been taken for granted that Darwin had solved the question once and for all. But had he?... I found many scientists with private doubts; rather fewer who had come out with them in public; and a handful who went so far as to say that Darwinism evolutionary theory had turned out not to be scientific theory at all… Darwin’s theory of how evolution had happened may now be … vulnerable, and a concept even more profound waiting to some on stage.”
In the first chapter, he states, “Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don’t. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact… the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms… On the other hand Darwinism… is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved.” (Pg. 4)
He notes, “there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there: at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt…. Yet there are lengthy periods of history when there is every reason to expect plenty of intermediates… groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seeming from nowhere… They are not negligible gaps. They are periods … when immense physiological changes had to take place. A couple of examples… One, how did fish become amphibians?... There are many associated changes of enormous complexity and difficulty, such as gills being transformed into lungs… Two, how did mammals evolve their jaw? The change between the reptile jaw and the mammal jaw is profound…” (Pg. 10-11)
He explains, “one of the insights of ‘The Origin of Species’ [was] to recognize that nature… might encourage ‘improvements’ in the same sort of way as the farmer breeds better and larger pigs, horses, cattle… Although Darwin and his successors have invoked these … as evidence of evolution, breeders with practical experience flatly disagree… there are limits to the development possible. The reason for reaching these evolutionary dead ends is not hard to find: the genetic code in each living thing has its own built-in limitations. It is designed to STOP a plant or creature stepping too far away from the average.” (Pg. 38-39)
Of origin-of-life experiments, he comments, “overall the experiments seem to show conclusively that relatively complicated---although still lifeless---chemicals can arise ‘spontaneously’ from simple ones. There is also the possibility that … organic compounds exist in outer space, and arrived from there to colonize Earth.” (Pg. 46-47)
Of the utility of ‘transitional’ structures, he states, “to return to … the human eye… talking about pre-adaptation is simply a way of avoiding the issue… if not sight, what else? It is unreasonable to ask for a speculative evolutionary scenario for every single novel creature and organ that appears suddenly in the fossil record, but the most obvious and daunting ones continue to stare us in the face, unexplained.” (Pg. 82-83)
Turning to creationism, he recounts, “however well-meaning the scientific creationists may be, the straightjacket of Genesis 1-11 is so restricting that to make ALL evolutionary facts fit within it is … ends in a perversion of science. Duane Gish and others of his standing are well aware of this problem, but in the end they let their faith override it. When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science… he answered… that it was the apparently great age of the Earth as shown by … radiometric dating; and that the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages---the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles… It was possible to see these as self-contained epochs succeeding one another, whereas the Bible said they were laid down during the single episode of the Flood.” (Pg. 97-100)
He points out, “The extraordinary thing is that… the marsupials of Australia have evolved in a remarkably similar way to the placental mammals in the rest of the world… Why should the Tasmanian wolf not have, for instance, more teeth, or bigger eyes, or longer claws, or larger ears, or any of a myriad of other evolutionary possibilities?... Simply, it is far more probable that there is some kind ow wolf ‘blueprint’ that determines they shall evolve as wolves… there are certain built-in rules that permit a great amount of variation, but only in limited directions on a limited number of themes.” (Pg. 150-151)
He explains, “[Ilya] Prigogene’s revolutionary contribution has been to show that as a result of this instability, open structures are continually poised to evolve into something more complex. He has demonstrated mathematically how the fluctuations and pulsations feed back upon themselves… with each new state there is a higher degree of complexity, and therefore… even more potential for change… Citing a number of spectacular chemical phenomena where random patterns … can arise spontaneously under certain conditions, he proposed that something of the same sort must have happened to establish the original genetic code.” (Pg. 162)
He summarizes, “So where does this leave the search for man’s origins?... It is certainly more complicated than the straight-line-of-descent people would have us believe---more a bush than a ladder… The biggest change in thinking since Darwin’s time has been the abandonment of a search for the Missing Link between ourselves and apes. Instead, the hunt is on for the Common Ancestor.” (Pg. 192)
He concludes, “If gradualism goes, and the pattern is revealed as one of sudden leaps, a new mechanism for change is needed… [Such as] hopeful monsters, embryological change, chromosomal jumps, laws of biological form… There are signs that this process of absorption is taking place once more. The modern synthesists… are pointing out that ideas concerning the development of form, and differing rates of change, were put forward in their writings… Darwin, I feel sure, would have felt happier with the new approach… Darwin and the great naturalists of Victorian times never lost sight of the creative wonder of nature as a whole… [Darwin] concludes, ‘There is grandeur in this view of life… having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.’ The new biology is looking afresh at living things… [If] natural selection has been tested and found wanting… Darwin would not have minded. Science is a voyage of discovery, and beyond each horizon there is another.” (Pg. 224-226)
This book will be of great interest to critics of the traditional concept of evolution, although Hitching’s suggestions of a ‘new biology’ lack substance.
January 27, 2009
this book was given to me free by one of the statisticians where i work. i can see why he had it- it attempts to refute the theory of evolution on statistical bases. of course we can only find a fraction of the fossils of the species we think must have existed-- do you know how hard it is to form a fossil? how precise the conditions have to be?
interesting, for anyone who loves anthropology/paleontology etc., and definitely raises the point that darwin didn't have all of the answers- as he himself knew- but this seems to be essentially just a creationist puppeteer act as far as i can tell!
interesting, for anyone who loves anthropology/paleontology etc., and definitely raises the point that darwin didn't have all of the answers- as he himself knew- but this seems to be essentially just a creationist puppeteer act as far as i can tell!
June 13, 2008
پرده از یک فریب دیرینه پا -شاید- بردارد
August 19, 2021
very engaging, clear, intelligent and often humorous prose looking at the science of evolution from darwin's time to the 1980's. particularly interesting for clarity of thought about the human elements conflicting with absolute scientific detachment from bias.
October 22, 2009
I'd give it more than 1 star for readability, but it is so far off track as far as Darwin and evolution go that I don't think anyone should read it who doesn't already know quite a lot about evolution. It would likely be very misleading for someone new to the field.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews