Wayne D. Rossiter, Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), ix + 177 Pps., $22.00.
Wayne Rossiter is Assistant Professor of Biology at Waynesburg University. Rossiter is a Christian professor of biology at a Christian institution of higher learning. He notes how countess students find the implications of Darwinism to be fatal to traditional belief. Rossiter believes that a blind and chance process – read Darwinian evolution – is incompatible with theism, and that that theistic evolutionists hold a position that is therefore incoherent. In fact, this entire book is one long argument against the plausibility of theistic evolution. He contends, for example, that there is only a one-sided push: that science is exclusive in its pushback toward theology, and that theology cannot likewise do so. His main point is that there is no distinguishable difference between theistic evolutionism and atheism when it comes to physical reality (25).
Rossiter also contends that various theistic evolutionists – John Haught and Kenneth Miller for example – hold to a faith that little resembles Christianity of yesteryears. To this, I answer, “yes, and so what?” The form of Christianity must continually reform itself in order to reach a new populace. He is very forthright: one cannot have a Darwin and a God too at the same time. Pointedly, I find Rossiter’s claims to be a confused mesh of postulations and assumptions which rely on faulty reasoning.
Rossiter finds himself at various times coming to the defense of Intelligent Design (ID) advocates to the expense of evolutionists. How in the world a practicing biologist can find himself agreeing with ID theorists is beyond me. He notes that something cannot be both intended and unintended at the same time, so the viewpoint of theistic evolution is incoherent. Rossiter claims that both the theology and science of theistic evolutionists is in error. What qualifies him to adjudicate the theology of theistic evolutionists is beyond me. He comes down hard on people like Teilhard de Chardin for attempting to reach a contemporary audience (cf., e.g., 63). His confusion on theological matters is demonstrated when he stipulates that the basic view of theistic evolution is that of process theism (69). He goes onward to stipulate that theistic evolution indicates that mankind is in a state of upward mobility toward perfection, rather than a state of continual decay, and that it also forces one to deny the existence of Adam and Eve. How anyone can believe in a putative Adam and Eve in the twenty-first century is beyond me. Rather, it is much more likely that we recapitulate “the fall” in each of our lives as we choose selfishness above and before the corporate good of others. It is the nature of cats that they play with mice, the nature of Ichneumonidae that they feed within the living bodies of Caterpillars, and it is the nature of humankind to act with selfishness. That these things are true is not due to divine oversight or indifference, but is the necessary cost of a creation that is left to be itself.
Rossiter claims that Darwinian evolution is not the only game in town, and that the theory has no predictive power, and is therefore insufficient (126). Instead of taking Gould’s criticisms of the over on just-so stories in evolution as a necessary corrective to the basic Darwinian core, Rossiter seemingly throws the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Rossiter is bold in claiming that whereas natural selection is completely intuitive, it is no longer clear that it can get the job done in the real world. The first problem, he says, is the power of selection. In countering his claims, I stipulate that he merely states the issue, instead of actually demonstrating it. He claims that “the preponderance of evidence” now suggest hat selection pressures are weak, ephemeral, and diffuse, and that therefore adaptionist stories have become increasingly more difficult to swallow (147). I disagree with this contention. Natural selection, though supplemented by various research programs in the twentieth century, is now – just as much as in the nineteenth century – the predominate explanation for the derivation of species. It seems that Rossiter cannot reconcile himself to the notion that evolution did not have him, in particular, in mind. Charles Sanders Peirce gives us a way in which to affirm the reality of evolution and the coexistence of teleology that, apparently, Rossiter is unaware of. Indeed, Peirce avers that it is possible to have a generalized telos that is at once non-specific but nevertheless effective in bringing about God’s intentions.
In sum, one will find a miss-mash of confused biology and confused theology within this title. It contends that there is no possible veracity within the tenets of theistic evolutionism, and it imports into the advocated theology key insights of ID theory. Read it with care.
Bradford McCall
Regent University