Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology

Abstract

Notes on Contributors General Introduction References and Further Reading Part I: Is It Possible to Reduce Biological Explanations to Explanations in Chemistry and/or Physics? Introduction References and Further Reading 1. It Is Possible to Reduce Biological Explanations to Explanations in Chemistry and/or Physics: Evelyn Fox Keller (MIT) 2. It Is Not Possible to Reduce Biological Explanations to Explanations in Chemistry and/or Physics: John Dupre (University of Exeter) Part II: Have Traits Evolved to Function the Way They Do Because of a Past Advantage? Introduction References and Further Reading 3. Traits Have Evolved to Function the Way They Do Because of a Past Advantage: Mark Perlman (Western Oregon University) 4. Traits Have Not Evolved to Function the Way They Do Because of a Past Advantage: Robert Cummins (University of Illinois-Urbana-Champagin) and Martin Roth (Drake University) Part III: Are Species Real? Introduction References and Further Reading 5. Species Are Real Biological Entities: Michael F. Claridge (Cardiff University) 6. Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities: Brent D. Mishler (University of California-Berkeley) Part IV: Does Selection Operate Primarily on Genes? Introduction References and Further Reading 7. Selection Does Operate Primarily on Genes: In Defense of the Gene as the Unit of Selection: Carmen Sapienza (Temple University) 8. Selection Does Not Operate Primarily on Genes: Richard M. Burian (University of Pittsburgh) Part V: Are Microevolution and Macroevolution Governed by the Same Processes? Introduction References and Further Reading 9. Microevolution and Macroevolution Are Governed by the Same Processes: Michael R. Dietrich (Dartmouth College) 10. Microevolution and Macroevolution Are Not Governed by the Same Processes: Douglas H. Erwin (Smithsonian Institution and Santa Fe Institute) Part VI: Does Evolutionary Developmental Biology Offer a Significant Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Paradigm? Introduction References and Further Reading 11. Evolutionary Developmental Biology Does Offer a Significant Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Paradigm: Manfred D. Laubichler (Arizona State University) 12. Evolutionary Developmental Biology Does Not Offer a Significant Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Paradigm: Alessandro Minelli (University of Padova) Part VII: Were the Basic Components of the Human Mind Solidified During the Pleistocene Epoch? Introduction References and Further Reading 13. The Basic Components of the Human Mind Were Solidified During the Pleistocene Epoch: Valerie G. Starratt (Nova Southeastern University) and Todd K. Shackelford (Florida Atlantic University) 14. The Basic Components of the Human Mind Were Not Solidified During the Pleistocene Epoch: Stephen M. Downes (University of Utah) Part VIII: Does Memetics Provide a Useful Way of Understanding Cultural Evolution? Introduction References and Further Reading 15. Memetics Does Provide a Useful Way of Understanding Cultural Evolution: Susan Blackmore (University of the West of England) 16. Memetics Does Not Provide a Useful Way of Understanding Cultural Evolution: A Developmental Perspective: William C. Wimsatt (University of Chicago) Part IX: Can the Biological Sciences Act as a Ground for Ethics? Introduction References and Further Reading 17. The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics: Michael Ruse (Florida State University) 18. What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics: Francisco J. Ayala (University of California-Irvine) Part X: Is There a Place for Intelligent Design in the Philosophy of Biology? Introduction References and Further Reading 19. There Is a Place for Intelligent Design in the Philosophy of Biology: Intelligent Design in (Philosophy of) Biology: Some Legitimate Roles: Del Ratzsch (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) 20. There Is No Place for Intelligent Design in the Philosophy of Biology: Intelligent Design Is Not Science: Francisco J. Ayala (University of California-Irvine) Index