Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Discussion note: Did Darwin really answer Paley's question?
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
2013 (English)In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, ISSN 1369-8486, E-ISSN 1879-2499, Vol. 44, no 3, 309-311 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

It is commonly thought that natural selection explains the rise of adaptive complexity. Razeto-Barry and Frick (2011) have recently argued in favour of this view, dubbing it the Creative View. I argue that the Creative View is mistaken if it claims that natural selection serves to answer Paley’s question. This is shown by a case that brings out the contrastive structure inherent in this demand for explanation. There is, however, a rather trivial sense in which specific environmental conditions are crucial for the rise of specific adaptations, but this is hardly what opponents of the Creative View are denying.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 44, no 3, 309-311 p.
Keyword [en]
Contrastive explanation, Creative View, Darwin, Natural selection, Paley's question
National Category
Philosophy
Research subject
Theoretical Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-97440DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.004OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-97440DiVA: diva2:677788
Available from: 2013-12-10 Created: 2013-12-10 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(169 kB)