Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" has been hailed by most biologists as well as many other scientists and lay persons alike, as one of the most significant theories of all time.  Subsequently, almost before the ink was dry on the last edition of Darwin's work, the same "selection" principle used by Darwin in the field of biology was being applied to other sections of human endeavor in an effort to explain a host of other puzzling problems.  Seemingly, any complex sequence of events which cannot be readily explained otherwise, can be analyzed and made simple by an application of the basic principle of Darwin's theory, as outlined in his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection", 1859.  Thus, such facets of life as the makeup of the social system, economic system, and many other imponderables can be explained by application of the theory of "Natural Selection" or in Herbert Spencer's words (later adopted by Darwin in lieu of the term "Natural Selection") "Survival of the Fittest".

Of course, the principle need for the theory arises from the desire for man to understand his own origins, and ultimately, the origin of life itself. In the belief of the majority of both the scientific minded and laymen alike, this the theory does, apparently, at least. Using this theory, one can supposedly explain how living organisms of even the simplest of sorts, once modified even in the slightest, can, through this process of "selection", reach the complexity of even the most intricate of organisms, including man himself.  And best of all, this change is seemingly accomplished without any need for intelligence to have acted in the process, since random choice by the selection (or survival) process does it all. Thus the origin of mankind has been explained and made so simple that it can be "understood" by all, from grade school on up to the most educated of persons.  The reasoning is so simple that even Thomas Huxley himself (a self educated scientist of the times and called "Darwin's Bulldog") was quoted as saying "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that" after reading Darwin's publication.

Huxley was by no means stupid but he, like so many other scientists including Darwin and the extremely capable Wallace, was fooled into an erroneous conclusion by accepting an exchange of "cause" for "effect" and believing he had solved the problem of the origin of species. Thus the effect of the ecology (and many other factors) acting to advance (or destroy) the life of an organism is believed to be the "cause" of the origin of that organism, rather than simply "encouraging" it to exist. This belief would have been very dear to Huxley, as he was an avid athiest and had no other basis except Darwinism to explain his personal philosophy for the origin of life.* (see below for additional coomments on "Natural Selection").

This article is the latest in a series of articles which point out a number of discontinuities in "Darwinian thought" which supposedly explain elements of our biological system; these discontinuities are almost completely ignored by the scientific community, in an attitude that supports Darwinism and protects its own system of beliefs. In an attempt to better understand the operation of the Darwinian principle involved, this particular article analyzes a small segment of our society - the automobile manufacturing industry - and considers whether Darwin's great engine of "Natural Selection" operates to produce an understanding of the "evolution" , "diversity", and "order" so evident in this industry.  It will be applied in the very same way "Natural Selection" is supposed to work in the biological system and will be used as an analogy for the process which exists in the biological world.

Proof by analogy requires the comparison of two similar situations which have characteristics in common, one situation of which is explainable, the other situation being confusing in some degree and not readily explainable. Here we have (ostensibly) an explainable situation of variability in the case of biological production, and another situation, variability in the auto industry, which is perplexing, at least in some of the same aspects.

Basically, to review, in the case of organic life, incremental change in any organism (or not even necessarily a "living" organism but perhaps also a "proto" organism - a precursor of life) which prevails in existence and is able to somehow reproduce, will come into "being" with the results that are so evident to all, the magnificent viable organic life evident all around us. This is the "bottom line" of Darwinian thought and essentially attempts to explain the origin of all life (even though this may not have been Darwin's original intention). The mechanism in the process is called "Natural Selection" and outlined in Darwin's book, as above. Again, the idea is very fulfilling to all biologists, and also to many others who require an explanation for the phenomena.

Searching for an analogy with which to compare the above process we find that there are many "Darwinian" processes which are, in important ways, similar to the development of the organic world. One of them is constantly before our eyes, thoroughly familiar to virtually all adults, and thus understandable at least in its broad outlines, to all. A Ph.D. is not at all necessary to understand it, and indeed, a grade school diploma will do just fine.  Detailed knowledge of biology is likewise not required.  This analogy arises as a result of a study of the evolution and development of the automobile manufacturing industry , in any or all countries of the world.

Variation in the output of this industry compares with and even greatly exceeds variation found in the biological world, at least if considering viable (non extinct) organisms. This figure is an estimate currently put as high as 15,000,000 species. However the number of distinct autos currently in service throughout the world greatly exceeds this number (the USA currently produces this amount of autos in the US alone, per year, and while many of these products are similar, very few of them, considering such refinements as colors, trim styles etc. are identical).

"Extinction" in the auto industry since its beginning, has been enormous (perhaps as high as 90%) and the output and direction of the industry virtually unpredictable, both as in the biological world.  The question that also arises is "what is the mechanism which is responsible for these aspects of this industry and the enormous variation in the types of output" without there being any evidence of intelligence which directs this output.

This question is essentially identical to the same questions which persisted in the field of biology prior to the "discovery" and explanation of the process of Natural Selection in Darwin's book, the "Origin of Species".

In the biological world, Creationists (virtually the only voices then in the fray), maintained that the variation, characteristics, and order of species in the biological world were a direct product of Intelligence, (a Creator). What few atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers which existed at that time had virtually no viable belief to explain any of these conditions.

In our current society, did one single genius sit down 100 years ago and plan out the various steps which have occurred over the last century creating some sort of a "master plan" which is responsible for the industry as it is today? Obviously not. Was Divine guidance involved, in some way similar to the claims Creationists make of the organic world? There is not even an inkling of evidence of this.  Is it possible that there are inherent features of either humanity or this planet, or both, which have driven the direction of this industry?

Unraveling the mystery of this development would have many advantages for those in this industry and in particular those who purchase from this industry, so the question is not trivial. For but one instance, suppose that all the "mistakes" that have been made, such as the development of obsolete models, could have been prevented; billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars could have been saved.  This money and effort could have been well spent in other fields of endeavor such as in medicine or food production.

So one might rightly ask, is the same process which produced the order, diversity and superiority in the organic world at work in the automotive industry to produce the same conditions there?  Since there is no clear answer to this question, it is simply logical to look at Darwin's process of "Natural Selection" to see if it is applicable.  (Note that the application of "intelligence" to the variation of auto output has essentially been a dismal failure - billions of dollars have been lost as a result of basing output on "logic".  A major, but by no means isolated "gaffe", was the introduction of an automobile named the "Edsel" by the Ford Motor Co. in 1957, and was "extinct" about 3 years later; many millions of dollars were lost on the project.)

Existence of species:

• Organic world: Those species that have been "Naturally Selected" are the only organisms existing.
• Automotive world: Those vehicle types (i.e. species) that have been "Naturally Selected" (by purchase) are the only products existing.

• Organic world: Those species having characteristics compatible with their surroundings are the only organisms existing.
• Automotive world: Those vehicle types most adaptable to the needs of the buying public are the only ones existing - there is little or no evidence of "planning".

• Organic world: The immense interdependence of species has all the appearance of planning.
• Automotive world: The wide spectrum of available vehicles and similarity of features has the appearance of planning.

Using just these three examples of (natural) "selection" (there are many more - but these will suffice) which exist both in the organic and vehicular world it can be seen that in each instance a form of "Natural Selection" is the cause of the existence of any particular organic or vehicular type.

Of course this is a very general comparison both as to description and function, leaving much open to argument and question; in fact, there are thousands of characteristics both in the organic and vehicular world which must be selected in each case such that "viability" persists. A little speculation on the part of the reader however, will produce the overall picture of the fact that the existence of any type, in either world, is dependent on one thing, and one thing alone: "Natural Selection". Nothing, in either case, is predictable. So there is a good analogous agreement between the two processes. Neither is explainable by logic alone, but rather the existence of any "species" is strictly dependent on what is in fact "unknown" parameters. In the case of the organic world it is the thousands of variable possibilities made by environmental and other factors such as gene combinations; in the automotive world it is the thousands of essentially random choices made by the buying public. Again, neither are predictable.

Thus the Darwinian process of  "Natural selection" is shown to be the determining factor in this and many other processes extant in not only the organic world, but also the functioning world in which we live. But again, nothing is new about this conclusion. There is one more factor however which is crucial to the reason behind this article.

That factor is the question relating to the true scientific "origin" of species when discussing the subject of biology and Darwin's theory,: What is the "Origin" of each of these two types of "species"?

• Organic World: The "Origin" (cause) of all species is a product of an unknown action of the DNA molecule. (Exactly how does it produce "life"?) Nothing is even known about the origin of this molecule yet it appears to have existed for at least 2 Billion years unchanged; there is no evidence of any evolution in its development.

  Thus the true "Origin of Species" is unknown . The "Natural Selection" of these various species is the cause of (or is the reason) only for their type existence.

• Automotive world: The true "Origin" or cause of all species is clearly known: it is a product of the action of the automotive industry, which has been developed by humans through the process of trial and error over the past 100 years. People make their choice, by "Natural Selection" (purchase) which is the cause only of type existence.

Darwin's theory is a simplistic tautology which does not explain the true "Origin" of anything. All it explains is the survival of certain organic types which have been "selected" because of their compatibility with the environment (and other factors, as above, including the laws of chance) in which they exist.

If the only effect of this error in logic was a the necessity to revise a belief in something such as the age of the earth, characteristics of makeup of a planet such as Mars, or a new view of the characteristics of matter such as "string theory", the subject would hardly be worth discussing. Such however is not the case.

Darwin's Theory has influence far beyond these matters and any knowledgeable person whether a believer in it or not, has unwittingly been affected by its position of belief in (chiefly) Western civilization. The Theory is nothing but a very insidious tautology, that purports to provide information about a subject when in fact it only misleads one into thinking that it carries useful information when it does not. The simplest of all tautologies, "either it is going to rain tomorrow or it is not", is no less a tautology and no more informative than the idea that Natural Selection is the "cause" of the "origin" of species.

It is insidious, because of its seductive nature, (see Huxley above) in that it supposedly supplies, as above, an answer to a fundamental Human question, when in fact it only advances a fallacious method of thinking which has pervaded Western civilization. This has been going on in increasing vigor, for essentially 6 generations ~ (about 150 years).

It can be seen from the analogy above, that Natural Selection, while it shapes the characteristics of "survivors", it is completely divorced from the true scientific "origin" of them. Whether the subject is organic species, autos, economic characteristics, or any of a myriad of social, economic or scientific questions which perplex the human race, Natural Selection is not the explanation for any of them any more than the above tautology provides useful information on tomorrow's weather. (However, if the above tautology inspires one to carry an umbrella, it may [or may not] be useful.)

The pervasiveness of this type of thought can best be displayed by looking at a few common "tautological" beliefs which are routinely accepted in our society:

Both of these sayings are based on tautologies which are not evident to the one who believes in them. The basis of both of them is found in a "reversal" of "cause" for "effect".

This is precisely the basis of the Darwinian Tautology: it switches "cause" for "effect" and thus explains the "Origin" of species, when all it really explains is the "type existence" of species which are of unknown origin.

But is this a new idea? Hardly. It was said best prior to the "discovery" of Darwin's theory by none other than Darwin's compatriot, Alfred Russel Wallace. His conclusion:

"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."
(em., [brackets], added). (unidentified "Species Notebook", P 43.) Probably 1854-55. From H. Lewis McKinney's Book "Wallace and Natural Selection"

This "bombshell" of an idea was recognized prior to Wallace's 1855 "Sarawak Law" paper which outlined 10 basic ideas on the existence of species which some say later became the basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Wallace, several years later, in a fit of delirium from malaria, ironically adopted the exact opposite of this notion as the basis for Darwin's theory. Note also, that Wallace's view of evolution was considerably different from Darwin's and that this fact has been most carefully hidden, in their publications, by those who are Believers (sic) in Darwin's theory. For example, Wallace continually argued that mankind could not have been produced by the process of Natural Selection, as Natural Selection, in any case, could have no effect on those who possess conceptual thought. Note that this idea, held throughout Wallace's life, did not make it into print either. Strange, to say the least.

As above, 6 generations of the Western world have been introduced to the idea of tautological thinking being the correct process of thought with conclusions such as the following:

"You are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms......." Biology, Visualizing Life, Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston, 1994,

Thus the fallacy of a tautology touches the very fundamental aspect of our life. It doesn't take much thought to realize that this one concept is a major pollutant in the engine of creative thought. In my opinion, this one idea is the scam of the 2nd millennium, and with the exception of the concept of Astrology, would be the scam of all time. Anyone considering barring the teaching of Darwinism because of its religious connotations is simply emphasizing the wrong objection: Darwinism is not only bad science, it is an atrocious thought process which pollutes our entire society.

*The term "Natural Selection", prior to Darwin's time, was essentially non-existent; (there were several uses of the term "selection" regarding evolution, prior to his publication of the book "Origins"). But Darwin's use of the term [some 350 times - the phrase always spelled out in full when type was laboriously set by hand] makes him the true "originator" of the term. In Darwin's time, the term was singularly used as the explanation of the process involved ("the cause of") in evolution, but today it is used as an explanation of a number of complex phenomena, as above. A true definition of the term almost depends on the source of the reference since there are hundreds of interpretations of what it means, some substantially different from others.

However, the bottom line of its meaning is that it is the "cause of evolution". Any thinking person should immediately be suspect when finding a myriad of meanings for a term which has such an important position in the field of biology. In reality of course, neither nature nor any part of it can "select" (except in Shakespearean terms); in every case, any "selection" made is made by a living organism from a choice of needs that may or may not be available. In that respect the term "Natural Selection" is a completely bogus term since it implies an action of which it is not capable. (Just how does it select?) Again, "Natural Selection" can "do" nothing - it is completely passive. Thus it can not be a "cause" of anything. (Does a sponge "select" the water, [or the water "select" the sponge]? According to Darwin's use of the word, it does; this may be good poetry, but it is not good science). However, if one simply mistakes "cause" for "effect" as above, the term takes on the meaning of which it is always used. This process of "reversal" has a real meaning in the field of logic: it is called a "logical fallacy".

It should be carefully noted that the principle of the theory - selection - operates with great accuracy "after the fact" - that is, it apparently explains how things "got where they are" but is unable to make any predictions as to what will occur in the future.  This is a failing acknowledged by even the staunchest of believers in Darwinism. When applied to the situation under consideration, this failing displays the fatal nature of the Darwinian process.

Email address: dbtngtms@tdtone.org
(You must have an email provider to use this feature)>

Page created by: The Doubting Thomas