• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Ken Wilber on Evolution

Integral World Podcast #1

Frank Visser / NotebookLM

This is an informal, AI-generated conversation by Google's NotebookLM, based on an academic paper written by Frank Visser covering Wilber's view of evolutionary theory.[1]

All right, let's dive into some really fascinating ideas. Today we're taking a look at evolution, spirituality, and well, some pretty heated debates. You know, you sent us some writings from Ken Wilber about evolution, and they're always interesting. But then someone also sent us this paper, and it directly challenges his views. So, we've got this kind of philosophical showdown on our hands.

Yeah, it's a clash of perspectives, isn't it? We're dealing with two very different ways of seeing the same thing. We have Wilber, right? He's a big name in integral theory. And he's known for this idea of spiritual evolution, which is this idea that there's a force he calls Eros driving everything.

Okay, so to put it simply, Wilber is saying that evolution isn't just like a biological process, but it's a spiritual one, too.

That's the gist of it. And for Wilber, this or sometimes he calls it Spirit, is guiding the universe toward greater complexity and greater consciousness.

Interesting. I'm already curious to hear the other side of this. But first, for those who might not be as familiar with with Ken Wilber. Could you maybe give us a little bit more background on his overall perspective?

Well, Wilber's idea of spiritual evolution is really deeply rooted in his broader philosophical framework. He talks about this concept of involution, which is like a downward movement from Spirit into the material world. And then evolution is the return journey back to Spirit. It's a theme that runs through a lot of his work.

So, where does this paper that challenges Wilber's view come in? What's the counterargument here?

Well, this paper is by Frank Visser, who is an academic and he argues that Wilber's interpretation of evolution is, and I'm quoting him directly here, deeply flawed, especially from a scientific point of view.

Okay, so let's unpack that a bit. What are Visser's main points of contention with Wilber's ideas?

Visser's main argument is that Wilber's misinterpreting scientific data to kind of, well, fit his spiritual narrative. And he points out that Wilber often critiques a simplified version of neo-Darwinism, not the more nuanced modern understanding of evolution.

Ah, so it's It's like Wilber is setting up a straw man argument, attacking a weaker version of evolution, to make his own view seem stronger.

Yeah, that's one way to look at it. And Visser brings up several examples to show what he means. One of the most interesting ones is the debate about how complex organs like eyes and wings evolved.

Oh yeah, this is where it gets really fascinating. Wilber argues that those incredibly complex organs, they couldn't have possibly evolved gradually through Darwinian processes. Right.

That's Wilber's argument. He says it would require tons of mutations to happen all at the same time, which is incredibly improbable statistically.

And what does Visser say to that?

Well, Visser points out that scientists have actually shown how things like eyes and wings could have evolved through these small incremental steps, accumulating small changes over a very long time. He says there's a ton of research on this that Wilber seems to just ignore.

Interesting. So, that's one point for Visser, it seems. But what about this idea of chance in evolution? I know Wilber also takes issue with the role of randomness, right? Saying it can't explain the complexity we see in nature.

That's right. That's another key point of disagreement. Wilber basically says that chance by itself isn't enough to explain the intricate designs we see in living organisms. He thinks there needs to be some guiding force, some intelligence behind it all.

But doesn't science have a response to that? It's not just about pure chance, right? There's natural selection, too.

You got it. Evolutionary theory actually emphasizes the interplay of two things. random variation which is like mutations and then non-random natural selection.

So random mutations introduce changes and natural selection acts as a filter, right? Determining which changes are beneficial or not in a particular environment.

Exactly. And it's this combination that drives the whole evolutionary process.

So how would you explain natural selection to someone who's not familiar with it?

Well, imagine it like this. You've got a population of organisms and they're all slightly different from each other because of these random mutations in their genes. Some of those variations might be beneficial, maybe making an organism better at finding food or avoiding predators. Others might be harmful, making it harder to survive or reproduce.

Okay. So, you have this constant mixing and matching of genetic variations going on.

Right. And the environment, it acts like a filter. It favors those variations that enhance an organism's ability to survive and crucially to reproduce in that specific environment.

Meaning, the organisms with the beneficial traits are more likely to pass those traits onto their offspring. Right?

Exactly. Over many, many generations, those advantageous traits, they become more common. While the less advantageous ones, they sort of fade away. And this process repeated over millions of years, can lead to these really incredible adaptations.

It's like nature is running this giant experiment, constantly trying out new variations.

That's a great way to put it. And it shows that this process is anything but random. It's driven by this constant pressure to survive and reproduce. You know, this reminds me of Richard Dawkins book, The Blind Watch Maker. He does such a good job of explaining how natural selection can create this amazing complexity without any conscious designer.

Absolutely. Dawkins uses the analogy of a watch maker to illustrate this point. A watch is complex and intricate, right? So, we naturally think it had to be designed by someone intelligent.

But Dawkins argues that nature can also create these complex designs not through intention, but through this blind, uncaring process of natural selection. Right?

Exactly. And this is where Wilber's arguments about chance being insufficient kind of fall apart. It seems like he underestimates how powerful natural selection is as a shaping force in evolution.

So, we've covered Wilber's critique of Darwinian evolution and his issues with chance. But what about self-organization? He talks about that a lot too, right? He sees it as evidence of an inherent creativity in the universe, something that aligns with his concept of Eros.

That's right. And that's another area where Wilber's interpretation diverges from mainstream science. He often refers to the work of scientists like Steuart Kaufman and Ilia Prigogine, who by the way did some groundbreaking research on self-organizing systems.

Can you give us a quick explanation of self-organizing systems? I think some people might not be familiar with that term.

Sure. Think of a flock of birds flying in formation or the patterns you see in the snowflake. Those are examples of self-organization where complex patterns just sort of emerge naturally from the interactions of simpler components. So there's no conscious designer, no blueprint dictating those patterns. They just kind of happen on their own.

Exactly. It's explained through things like energy flows, feedback loops, and the inherent properties of whatever makes up that system.

So where does Wilber go wrong in his interpretation of self-organization?

Well, he seems to see self-organization as evidence for some conscious purposeful force, which he links to his Eros idea. But the scientists he cites like Kaufman and Prigogine, they don't necessarily agree with with that interpretation do they?

Right. They're talking about natural processes that can be studied and understood scientifically, not necessarily some mystical force.

Precisely. And that's a key point to remember as we continue to explore Wilber's ideas. He's coming from a very specific philosophical and spiritual perspective, which definitely influences how he interprets scientific findings.

It seems like Wilber is projecting his own beliefs onto these scientific findings, kind of interpreting them in a way that supports his worldview.

Yeah, that's a big part of it. And it highlights this fundamental difference in perspective. Right? Wilber is coming from this tradition that sees like a deeper meaning, a purpose embedded in the evolutionary process itself. He's looking for that spiritual force at work.

But science by nature focuses on what we can see, test, and replicate. It tries to figure out the how's and the why's, but without necessarily needing a big overarching narrative.

Exactly. And that's where the tension comes in. Wilber is asking these big questions about ultimate meaning, the role of consciousness, even the possibility of a transcendent reality. Questions that science, at least as we know it now, may not be equipped to answer.

Okay, so let's shift gears for a minute. Wilber makes some specific claims about evolution that I think we should dig into. Like he seems really fixated on this idea that evolution is directional, that it's inherently moving towards greater complexity and consciousness. And I know Visser really pushes back on that.

He does. He argues that this whole concept of directionality and evolution is misleading and that a lot of scientists have challenged it. He even brings up the work of Steven J. Gould, who was a big name in evolutionary biology. Gould said that evolution isn't this predetermined march towards complexity, but rather it's this much more contingent process that is shaped by chance and whatever environmental pressures are happening.

So, it's more like a winding path full of twists and turns and not a straight line to some predetermined goal.

That's a good way to think about it. And again, it highlights a fundamental difference in how they're seeing things. Wilber is looking for this cause or teleology like a purpose built into evolution itself. Mainstream science though focuses on the mechanisms, the nuts and bolts of how evolution actually works.

And this brings us back to that central critique from Visser, right? Wilber's lack of concrete evidence. Wilber throws around terms like Spirit, Eros, and "creative advance", but where's the actual substance?

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Visser says Wilber never really gives a detailed testable explanation for how this spiritual force actually interacts with the physical world. It's this vague idea without a clear mechanism.

It's like saying there's a magical unicorn pulling the chariot of evolution, but we can't see it, can't measure it, can't even prove it exists.

That's a great way to put it. And that's a big reason why many scientists just don't take Wilber's ideas seriously. They lack that empirical grounding and testability that are so essential to the scientific method.

Besides the eyes and wings example, are there other instances where Wilber seems to be misrepresenting or simplifying scientific concepts to make things fit his narrative.

Well, he often uses statistical arguments. You know, he'll say that the odds of complex structures arising just by chance are impossibly small. And he uses this to argue that there has to be some guiding force. This Eros at play. But Visser, along with lots of other scientists, points out that evolution isn't just about pure chance. Natural selection plays a huge role here.

Right? It's not just random mutations happening out of nowhere. It's about those mutations interacting with the environment and which ones actually help an organism survive.

Exactly. It's this combo of random variation and then this non-random selection process. And that's something Dawkins explains so well in The Blind Watchmaker.

Right. He uses that watchmaker analogy to show how natural selection over these huge amounts of time can create super complex structures even if each little step in the process is relatively simple and probable. Wilber also seems to misunderstand the work of scientists like Ilia Prigogine who studied self-organizing systems. Didn't he use Prigogine's work to support this idea of a built-in drive towards complexity in the universe?

Yes, he did. Prigogine's research focused on how systems that are far from equilibrium can actually kind of spontaneously develop order and complexity. A good example is a snowflake forming. But Wilber takes this as evidence for a conscious purposeful force that's guiding these processes.

But that's not really what Prigogine was saying, right?

Not at all. Prigogine was talking about physical processes, things driven by energ flows and feedback loops. He wasn't invoking some metaphysical or spiritual explanation for complexity.

It seems like Wilber's doing this consistently, projecting his beliefs onto scientific findings, twisting them to fit his ideas.

And that's where it gets tricky because it creates this false dichotomy between science and spirituality. Like you have to pick one or the other.

But do we really? Can't there be a middle ground? A way to appreciate both the scientific understanding of evolution and the incredible complexity of the natural world? That's a really good question and a lot of people are struggling with that very question. There are definitely scientists and philosophers out there who find deep meaning even a sense of the sacred within the framework of evolutionary theory. They see this interconnectedness of life, the amazing adaptations, the creativity of it all and they find it profoundly moving without needing to bring in a supernatural force.

So you can embrace the science without losing that sense of awe and mystery about life.

Absolutely. Actually understanding the details of how evolution works. Those billions of years of history behind every living thing can make you appreciate the natural world even more.

It's like when you learn about a great work of art, right? Understanding the artist technique, the history behind it, can make you enjoy it even more.

Exactly. And that's what we need to do with evolution. Find a more nuanced and integrated perspective, one that embraces both the scientific rigor and the depth of human experience.

While Wilber's ideas are interesting, They do seem to rely on interpretations that don't always align with the scientific method. But to be fair, he does bring up some valid points, doesn't he? Like he challenges those purely reductionist views of science, reminding us that there are still mysteries out there, things science hasn't fully explained yet.

That's true. And we have to acknowledge that science itself is always evolving. It's constantly refining its theories as new discoveries are made. There are definitely areas where our understanding of evolution is still incomplete, places where we have a lot more to learn.

So maybe there's room for a more nuanced conversation between science and spirituality. One that recognizes what each perspective can and can't offer.

I think so. We don't have to see them as enemies. They're just different ways of knowing and experiencing the world, each with its own strengths and limitations.

Wilber seems to be tapping into this very human thing, this desire for purpose and meaning in a universe that can feel, well, vast and indifferent. He offers this idea of a universal force, Eros, that is pushing us toward greater complexity and consciousness. And while that's not something we can test scientifically, it might resonate with people on an emotional level.

That's an important point. Science by itself doesn't necessarily give us those things. It can explain how the universe works, but it might not tell us why we're here or what our lives mean.

So maybe there's room for both, the scientific inquiry and the spiritual exploration, trying to understand the mechanisms of evolution while also searching for that deeper meaning and purpose within the grand scheme of things.

I think that's a beautiful way put it, embracing the complexity of reality, recognizing that we may never have all the answers, but the search itself is a big part of what makes us human.

And maybe that's the real takeaway from this deep dive. To stay curious, to keep questioning, to be open to different ideas and to find our own way to blend the knowledge of science with the wisdom of the heart and to remember that the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know. And that sense of wonder and mystery, that's what keeps us exploring and pushing the boundaries of what we know.

So where do we go from here? How do we even begin to reconcile these seemingly opposing views? Do we have to choose between a scientific and a spiritual understanding of evolution?

That's the big question, isn't it? And I don't think there's a simple answer. It's not really about choosing sides, but about recognizing that each perspective has its strengths and its weaknesses.

I mean, science has given us so much incredible insights into how evolution works, the how's and why's behind all the variety of life, but it doesn't always address these deeper existential questions like the ones Wilber seems to be wrestling with. You know, where is this all going? Is there a purpose?

Exactly. And that's where Wilber's perspective, even though it's not very scientific, might speak to some people. This idea of a universal force guiding evolution towards more complexity, more consciousness, it can be a really appealing idea, even if we can't test it scientifically.

I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If you want that purely mechanistic explanation of how life changes. Science is great for that. But if you're looking for something more, a sense of meaning, a purpose in it all, then yeah, you might need to look elsewhere.

And that's perfectly fine. There's room for both. We can appreciate the elegance of how natural selection works and still think about those deeper mysteries of existence. Maybe it's in that space between the science and the spiritual, between what we can measure and what we can only imagine that the most interesting conversations happen.

I like that. It's not about rejecting one or the other, but holding them both kind of in tension.

And maybe, just maybe, it's that tension that keeps us moving forward, asking those questions, searching for those answers.

You've given us so much to think about. Any last thoughts before we wrap up our deep dive?

Just remember that evolution is still happening, both out there in the world and in our own understanding of it. So, stay curious, keep questioning, and see where your own exploration takes you.

That's great advice. Thanks so much for joining us and helping us navigate this really fascinating and complex topic. It's been a really enriching deep dive.

My pleasure. It's been great.

And thanks to you, our listeners, for coming along on this journey with us. Until next time, keep diving deep.

References

• Ken Wilber's Problematic Relationship to Science, Integral Review, vol. 16, nr. 2, August 2020.