Evolutionary Philosophies and Contemporary Theology by Eric C. Rust (review)

796 BOOK REVIEWS ably. (p. 68) Yet even in this regard, not even popularization can justify the glib proposal (pp. 115-117) that the problems generated by the evolutionary uniqueness of man are adequately accounted for in the analysis of novelty given by Dialectical Materialism. In the first place, Mechanistic Materialism, Vitalistic Materialism, and Dialectical Materialism certainly do not adequately categorize the positions possible and taken over the problem of matter and spirit as it arises in considering the nature of man (see the comprehensive survey of opinions on this point in M. J. Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes [New York: Holt, 1967], Ch. 4, pp. 51-65); and in the second place, it is simply shoddy concordism to pass off the impression that the traditional Christian doctrines about man's spiritual nature and destiny can be taken over without contradiction into the philosophical framework of Dialectical Materialism (see The Difference of Man, Ch. 18, pp. ~81-~94). There is more that could be said on these and still other points; but I think enough has been said to support this double judgment: a) Delfgaauw's study does succeed in keeping at the level of the interested high-school graduate, as it was intended to do; b) Delfgaauw's study achieves its intended level of simplification without falling into any more oversimplifications than most of Teilhard's popularizers. If you know a high-schooler interested in Teilhard, you could do worse than to put him on to Delfgaauw. On the other hand- I am taking Delfgaauw's word on this-" the reader who wants a more thorough exposition, from philosophical standpoint, of the issues raised by the theory of evolution might do worse than tum to my [i.e., Delfgaauw's] book Geschiedenis en Vooruitgang " (p. ~0), available in German translation as Geschick als Fortschrift (Cologne, 196~-1966). Institute fOT PkiloBopkical R&earck Chicago, IUinois JOHN N. DEELY Evolutionary Philosophies and Contemporary Theology. By ERIC C. RusT. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969. Pp. ~56. $6.50. Professor Rust does us all the favor of raising quite clearly the question of the scope and the task of theology today. He gives us a good outline of various philosophical views which are influential in shaping both Protestant and Catholic theology. This, of course, does not include an account of those still available classical philosophies, nor does it review all of even the contemporary philosophical possibilities, but the evolutionary thought he outlines does affect one important stream of contemporary theology. Teilhard de Chardin, for instance, seems about to become one BOOK REVIEWS 797 of the major theoretical influences in Catholic thought, and, in order to appraise this, we will have to understand it more fully against its philosophical background. However, no complete treatment of all major theological questions has yet been built on a modern basis of process and evolution, and this raises the question of whether such a full-scale theology can be produced. Certainly we can see more and more clearly why it is crucial for us to try this complete theological revision and to do it on the basis of clearly developed philosophical principles. In an instant, it seems as if we have left most classical Protestant and Catholic theologies behind. The pressures of the day are such that we must produce a fresh theological scheme or we will have none. In this attempt, history is exhausted as a theological source. The younger generation has abandoned its interest in developing its understanding from a study of the past. This does not mean they are right in doing this, but it does mean that the only way to preserve tradition and to make it forceful again is to bring it forth in a new mold. As we consider this task, we are almost forced to begin by considering evolutionary philosophies as a model. The problem is, however, that no complete theological treatment has yet been built on this basis, although a number of attempts are in the making. A partial treatment of a few theological issues will not do. How successful will it be if every major doctrine is redone on this basis? In helping to answer this...