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. (shrink)