Paul Barry

The explanatory role of natural selection is one of the long-term debates in evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, the consensus has been slippery because conceptual confusions and the absence of a unified, formal causal model that integrates different explanatory scopes of natural selection. In this study we attempt to examine two questions: (i) What can the theory of natural selection explain? and (ii) Is there a causal or explanatory model that integrates all natural selection explananda? For the first question, we argue that five explananda have been assigned to the theory of natural selection and that four of them may be actually considered explananda of natural selection. For the second question, we claim that a probabilistic conception of causality and the statistical relevance concept of explanation are both good models for understanding the explanatory role of natural selection. We review the biological and philosophical disputes about the explanatory role of natural selection and formalize some explananda in probabilistic terms using classical results from population genetics. Most of these explananda have been discussed in philosophical terms but some of them have been mixed up and confused. We analyze and set the limits of these problems.

We propose a new interpretation of the equation E=mc² in special relativity by generalizing ideas of ontological emergence to fundamental physics. This allows us to propose that mass, as a property, can be considered to emerge from energy, using a well-known definition of weak ontological emergence. Einstein’s famous equation gains in this way a clearer philosophical interpretation, one that avoids the problems of previous attempts, and is fully consistent with the kinematic properties of special relativity, while yielding fresh insights concerning the nature of mass.

In this paper, I respond to arguments proposed by Brunnander in this journal issue concerning my position regarding the Creative View of natural selection. Brunnander argues that the Creative View we defend does not serve to answer William Paley’s question because Paley’s question is “why there are complex things rather than simple ones” and natural selection cannot answer this question. Brunnander’s arguments for defend a Non-creative View of natural selection. Here I claim that Brunnander’s arguments for are mistaken and I also argue that even accepting we do not have to accept, given that statement is historically and conceptually flawed. Thus here I analyze Paley’s question from a historical point of view and from a contemporary perspective in a quest for the potential conceptual relevance of Paley’s question today. In this vein I argue that from a contemporary point of view statement may be correct but for different reasons than those adduced by Brunnander.