Published Jul, 1997

Rev. Apr 20, 2004 

ctr. Feb. 2004

ABSTRACT

More and more people, many of them scientists, are finding a new use for Darwin's theory. Thus, there is another relatively new field of study, "population genetics" or some such, that uses Darwin's theory to explain some facet of population distribution. There are those who, being somewhat cynical, deride this notion and claim that these scientists are merely using cause/effect relationships to ferret out some new detail, very similar to the process called "reverse engineering", used extensively in that field.

But a real believer in Darwin's theory would have none of this, and instead will point to the obvious success of Darwin and his theory in the explanation of the plant and animal kingdom, so evident all around us. Assuming this latter statement to be true (for the moment) and being one of those with a full understanding of Darwin's theory, I would like to announce another application for the theory.

The impetus for this discovery was the [recent] running of the 81st Indy 500 auto race on May 27, 1997. Like a flash, it occurred to me, that the winner of the Race had been chosen by "Natural Selection", Darwin's so-called Great Discovery. Suddenly it was clear that all of the incidents surrounding the victory of Arie Luyendyk, so confusing to the uninformed, point to Natural Selection as the cause of his victory!

For an example,the accumulation of the many small changes which have been made to his race car, have obviously been selected. Add to this the additional small changes made by his slightly different driving habits, these also having been selected, and it is very easy to see how he became the winner.

However, let us not forget that natural selection was on hand in other ways too; thus, the power of Natural Selection - "daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, ---- rejecting that which is bad,----" - rejected several teams in a pileup on lap 23 involving Mark Dismore, Roberto Guerrero, Steve Kinser and Eliseo Salazar. Again later, Paul Durant got sideways with rookie Billy Roe in turn 3, and Durant was very nearly "rigidly destroyed". This would be by "natural selection" also, as Roe apparently committed an "injurious variation" from good driving technique. We well know that Natural Selection does not allow this as Darwin has stated: "On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed", in reference to the matter, (not the race). It is puzzling as to how or why Durant was selected, since he appeared to be blameless. Possibly the theory may have been incorrectly applied in this instance.

But an even more important judgment about Darwin's theory can be made regarding this victory, if you consider the Darwin/Spencer concept of "survival of the fittest". No one can deny that Arie Luyendyk is the fittest of the teams in the entire population of teams in the race. So it should be no surprise to anyone, least of all Darwinists, that he finished first.

Once again, Darwinian theory triumphs. Arie, of course, neither admitted nor denied that he had used Darwin's theory to accomplish the victory. Nothing is new here however, since a winner of this race is not likely to give away any secrets.

(The intention here is, of course, humor. "Natural Selectrion" (NS) is, in fact, a "non sequitur", a term which only has meaning if you are a believer in "Darwin's Theory". Reading this story, it "appears" that NS has been the "cause" of the victory of Arie Luyendyk, just as it seems to be an explanation for the "cause" of evolution, (however you define it). Also please note that NS can be considered to be the cause of the winning of every   contest whether athletic, economic, organic survival, or any other source. To see the real meaning of this term, look at the following analogy and the effect NS has on a portion of our economy (the automotive industry); go to this article which displays the fatal error in Darwinian thought. )