There have been several books carrying the ostensibly vague, if not pompous, title of "Philosophy of Biology" (see the two edited by Hull and Ruse, one for Oxford and the other for Cambridge University Press; and one by Ruse for Prometheus). Most of the others are compilations of essays written by diverse writers. One will find Rosenberg and McShea refreshingly original. It is profound and yet lucid. It stated its aims clearly, explaining from the outset the meaning of the phrase "The Philosophy of Biology" as an inquiry into the science of biology, not limited to what it actually does as a science, or its methods as such, but to scrutinise its scope and limits. A study of this kind will necessarily inquire into the possibilities and potential of this science, and questions its strength and the challenges that it faces, notably from religious quarters seeking to damn it as quixotic in so far as they think that some questions of life are impenetrable to science; and others who think that they can masquerade religion as science.
The thrust of the book lies in its explanation of "Darwinism", especially as to what it means scientifically, and what it has achieved or proven and what its problems are. It seems clear from this book that the problems of Darwinism are problems of science. However, many questions arise which have cross-disciplinary interests. The role and extent of adaptation in the evolution of living things is a fertile field. Why do distinct species evolve with common traits and what cause the development of those traits? How do we evaluate the effect of randomness in evolution?
2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species". It may be worthwhile to read the latter again after reading Rosenberg to see just how far we have come since Darwin, and why we owe so much to its author. Darwinism casts such an awesome shadow that underneath it, the flower of Creationism can no longer bloom. Creationism, "intelligent" design and various unscientific intrusions into science have tended to distract scientists and philosophers from their work. Rosenberg and McShea also felt obliged to answer some of the claims of Behe when they could have concentrated on the impartial examination of life, free from the vanity that humans are central to the universe.
This book is not difficult even for people who have no knowledge of biology, philosophy, or Darwinism.