• 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).

Wilber on Darwin's Contribution

Integral World Podcast #5

Frank Visser / NotebookLM

This is an informal, AI-generated conversation by Google's NotebookLM, based on the essay "'Precisely nothing new or unusual', Ken Wilber on Darwin's Lasting Contribution" written by Frank Visser in 2019.[1]

Hey everyone, welcome back. Ready for another deep dive?

Always!

Awesome. Today we're tackling evolution. Uh well, a specific take on it at least.

Yeah. We're looking at how philosopher Ken Wilber views Darwin, you know, the whole evolution thing.

Sounds intriguing.

It is. We're working with an article that analyzes Wilber's perspective. And it brings up this really interesting question. Did Darwin just confirm what everyone already kind of knew or was his work really revolutionary?

Ah, I see. Getting right to the heart of it.

Right. So to set things up, Wilber actually thinks evolution was already a hot topic before Darwin came along.

That's interesting. What makes him say that?

He points to thinkers like Schelling and Hegel who were already exploring these ideas. So for him, Darwin's contribution is less about introducing a brand new concept and more about well providing evidence for something that was already brewing.

Okay. So not necessarily original, but definitely adding fuel to the fire. But where does Wilber disagree with Darwin? That's the really fascinating part. Wilber thinks Darwin got so caught up in the how of evolution, you know, the mechanics of natural selection, that he missed the bigger picture, the why.

Okay, I'm following. He's looking for a deeper meaning behind it all.

Exactly. Wilber believes there's this driving spiritual force behind evolution, which he calls Eros.

Eros, like the Greek god of love.

Well, it's inspired by that, but Wilber uses it in a broader sense. It's this creative impulse, this urge towards greater complexity in consciousness.

Interesting. So, he's adding a spiritual dimension that he feels Darwin overlooked, right?

And he even goes so far as to say that natural selection only really explains micro-evolution, right?

Micro-evolution.

It's those small gradual changes we see in species over time, like the slight variations in beak size among finches.

Okay, I get it. Small tweaks here and there. But what about the big leaps in evolution? Like, how did we go from single-cellled organisms to complex creatures like, well, us?

Exactly. That's what Wilber calls macro-evolution, the emergence of entirely new features and body plans. And he argues that natural selection alone can't account for those big leaps.

So he's drawing a line between the small changes and the really transformative ones. But how does he explain those big jumps if not through natural selection?

He attributes them to, as he puts it, Spirit in action. This creative force that's embedded in the very fabric of reality.

Okay, so he's bringing in his integral philosophy here, right? This idea of a universal consciousness driving evolution towards greater complexity.

Exactly. But it's important to note that Wilber's views have evolved over time. Early on, he was quite critical of neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism, that's just the modern version of Darwin's theory that includes genetics. Right?

Yeah. Exactly. And Wilber initially argued in his book, A Brief History of Everything, that neo-Darwinism couldn't fully explain macro-evolutionary change. But he later admitted that evolutionary biologists have made significant progress in explaining how those big leaps happen.

Oh, so he kind of backtracked on that a bit.

It seems that way. It's more like he shifted his focus from critiquing the science to emphasizing the need for a more holistic understanding of evolution, one that includes the spiritual dimension.

It sounds like Wilber's more concerned with adding a layer of meaning to the evolutionary story, something that he feels traditional science leaves out.

That's a great way to put it. He's not necessarily rejecting the scientific explanations, but wants to integrate them into a larger framework that includes consciousness and purpose.

Interesting. But how does the article we're looking at respond to Wilber's claims? Does it agree with him?

Not quite. It actually pushes back on some of his ideas. For example, evolutionary biology has shown how complex structures like the human ear can arise through gradual changes over millions of years.

Really? The ear? That's amazing. How did that happen?

Well, believe it or not, the human ear actually evolved from reptilian jawbones. It's this incredible example of how incremental changes can lead to something incredibly intricate and functional.

Wow, that's mind-blowing. But Wilber still seems fixated on the idea of a missing link, right? Like there's some crucial piece of the puzzle that's needed to explain those big evolutionary leaps.

Yeah, that's a point the article addresses directly. It points out that the term missing link is kind of outdated and scientifically inaccurate.

Oh, why is that?

Well, it implies this linear view of evolution. Like there's a straight line from one species to the next with a single missing link connecting them. But modern evolutionary biology sees it more as a branching process.

Ah like a tree with many branches, not just a single line.

Exactly. And the term last common ancestor is preferred because it reflects that more complex view of how species are related.

So instead of searching for one missing link, we're tracing back these branching lineages to find common points of origin.

Precisely. And this difference in perspective highlights another key distinction between Wilber and Darwin. Wilber seems to favor the Great Chain of Being model. This ancient idea that places all life forms in a hierarchy with humans at the top.

That sounds a bit anthropocentric, doesn't it? Like humans are the pinnacle of creation.

Yeah, it's an idea that's been around for centuries, but it doesn't quite fit with Darwin's view. Darwin's tree of life emphasizes the dynamic and diverse nature of evolution. There's no single end point or predetermined hierarchy. It's all all about adaptation and branching out in different directions.

So, we've got these two very different frameworks for understanding evolution. Wilber seeking a unifying spiritual force, while Darwin meticulously observed the mechanisms of natural selection. It's like comparing a grand philosophical vision to a detailed scientific analysis.

That's a fantastic analogy. They're approaching the question from very different angles. And to understand Wilber's perspective more fully, we need to bring in another thinker he often references, Herbert Spencer.

Herbert Spencer, wasn't he a contemporary of Darwin?

He was. And what's fascinating is that Spencer had ideas about evolution that were quite similar to Wilber's. They both emphasized a driving force pushing evolution towards greater complexity and consciousness.

So they were both challenging Darwin's emphasis on natural selection as the primary mechanism.

In a way, yes. Spencer, like Wilber, believed in a more teleological view of evolution, seeing it as directed towards a specific goal or purpose.

Teleological, what does that mean?

It means there's a built-in purpose or goal guiding the process. And one of Spencer's key ideas was Lamarian inheritance.

Lamarian inheritance. Oh, like the idea that if a giraffe stretches its neck to reach higher leaves, its offspring will inherit a longer neck.

Exactly. That was Lamarck's idea. And Spencer was a big proponent of it. He believed that traits acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed down to its offspring.

But we know that's not really how inheritance works, right? Genes determine traits and those genes are passed down, not the changes that happen during an individual's life.

You're right. Lamarckian inheritance has largely been debunked by modern genetics, but it was a popular idea of the 19th century and it influenced both Spencer and Wilber.

So, they both saw a more intentional goal oriented force shaping evolution as opposed to Darwin's focus on random variations and environmental pressures.

Exactly. And this brings us to another interesting point of contention between Wilber and traditional evolutionary theory. The second law of thermodynamics.

Oh, this should be good. What does thermodynamics have to do with evolution?

Well, the second law of thermodynamics essentially states that entropy or disorder tends to increase in closed systems over time.

Like how a messy room only gets messier unless you put in energy to clean it up.

Perfect analogy. And Wilber points out that this seems to contradict the idea of evolution as a process of increasing order and complexity.

That's an interesting point. If the universe is constantly moving towards disorder. How can life become more complex and organized over time?

It's a challenge that Wilber raises against traditional evolutionary theory.

And to address this apparent conflict, he turns to complexity science.

Complexity science? What is that?

It's a relatively new field that studies how order can emerge from seemingly chaotic systems. How simple rules and interactions can lead to incredibly complex patterns and behaviors.

So, is it like how a swirling cloud of dust can coales into a perfectly formed galaxy. Order arising from seeming chaos.

That's a great analogy. And Wilber argues that this drive towards complexity is inherent in the universe, even at the level of matter itself. He sees this as evidence of a spirit of evolution operating beneath the surface, guiding the process towards greater order and complexity.

So, he's using complexity science to support his idea of a guiding force behind evolution.

Exactly. He believes that this Spirit isn't some supernatural entity intervening in the world, but rather a fundamental principle woven into the fabric of reality itself. It's what draws matter toward greater complexity and drives the evolutionary process toward higher forms of consciousness.

It's a pretty profound concept, this blending of science and spirituality.

It is, and it's one of the things that makes Wilber's work so compelling, even if it challenges conventional scientific thinking.

But the article does make a distinction, right? It notes that Wilber's idea of a Spirit of evolution is more of an evolutionary theology, than a scientific theory.

That's an important point. While Wilber attempts to bridge science and spirituality, he's ultimately stepping outside the traditional boundaries of scientific inquiry.

So, we're dealing with two very different ways of knowing and understanding the world.

Exactly. And this deep dive into Wilber's interpretation of evolution has really highlighted those differences. We've explored his critique of Darwin, delve into the concept of micro- versus macro-eolution, and even touch on the second law of thermodynamics. It's been quite a journey so far.

It has, and I'm really curious to see what else we uncover as we continue this deep dive. Ready to keep going?

Absolutely. Let's delve deeper. All right. So, Wilber definitely has his own unique take on evolution. That much is clear. But one thing that stuck out to me from the article is how it challenges Wilber's idea that Darwin's theory was not very surprising. Like, he's suggesting everyone already kind of knew this stuff.

Yeah, I found that interesting, too. The article actually brings up some pretty strong evidence. evidence to counter that claim. For one, it mentions the work of Peter Bowler, an evolutionary historian. Bowler argues that Darwin's theory actually represented a huge e shift in thinking, not just a rehash of old ideas.

So, is Wilber maybe downplaying the impact Darwin actually had?

That's what the article seems to suggest. It points out that Darwin's ideas, especially natural selection, were really controversial in the 19th century. It went against deeply held beliefs about, well, the origin of species and humanity place in the world.

Yeah, I could see that. Suddenly tossing out the idea of a divine creator and replacing it with random variation and survival of the fittest must have been a shock to the system back then.

Absolutely. Imagine the implications. No purpose or design in nature, just this blind process of selection. Must have been unsettling for many. The article even quotes Daniel Dennett, a well-known evolutionary biologist and philosopher. He calls Darwin's idea "dangerous" and says it could provoke vertigo and revulsion.

Dangerous. Wow, that's pretty intense. It's amazing to think how far we've come since then. Evolution is so widely accepted now. It's hard to imagine how revolutionary, even disturbing, these ideas were back then.

It just shows how powerful scientific ideas can be, how they can totally reshape our understanding of ourselves in the universe. I think this whole discussion with Wilber highlights how closely science, philosophy, and spirituality are all linked, especially when we're tackling these big questions.

Definitely, it reminds us that that there are so many ways of looking at the world and even if we don't agree with someone's viewpoint, it's important to at least try to understand where they're coming from.

Couldn't agree more. Engaging with different perspectives, even ones we might disagree with, actually enriches our own understanding. It's also important to keep in mind that this deep dive into Wilber is just one tiny piece of a much larger puzzle. There's a vast and growing body of scientific research on evolution that we haven't even touched on here.

Right. Good point. This conversation is definitely sparking my curiosity, making me want to explore all those other avenues and perspectives. But before we get sidetracked, let's circle back to Wilber for a bit. We were talking about his idea of a Spirit of evolution and how he tries to reconcile it with the scientific view. Could you elaborate on how Hindu metaphysics plays into all of this?

Sure. Wilber draws a lot of inspiration from the concept of Brahman in Hindu philosophy. Think of Brahman as the ultimate reality, the Ground of all Being. It's often described as pure consciousness or awareness. Wilber sees evolution as this process of Brahman, this consciousness unfolding and expressing itself in increasingly complex forms. And guess what the culmination of this process is?

Let me guess. Humans,

You got it. Wilber believes that Eros, that driving force we talked about, is actually an expression of Brahman's creative impulse.

So instead of a blind material process, Wilber sees evolution as this spiritual journey guided by this underlying consciousness.

Exactly. He's arguing that consciousness isn't just a byproduct of complex brains but a fundamental aspect of the universe itself. And this is where his interpretation of complexity science comes in. He sees the emergence of order from chaos like we see in the cosmos and throughout evolution as pointing to this deeper principle of self-organization that's inherent in the universe itself.

Can you give an example of how this self-organization works specifically in evolution?

Sure. Imagine the formation of the first cells. From a purely materialistic viewpoint, it seems crazy imp able that the right molecules would just randomly bump into each other in the primordial soup and somehow assemble themselves into a functioning cell. But Wilber would say this wasn't just random chance. There's a deeper principle at play, a drive toward complexity and organization that guided the process.

So he sees this drive as evidence of a spirit of evolution at work, like a hidden hand shaping things.

Exactly. He believes that the Spirit isn't some supernatural entity out there, but a fundamental principle embedded in reality. itself. It's what draws matter toward more and more complexity and pushes evolution toward higher forms of consciousness.

It's really blending science and spirituality in this really unique way. But I'm also curious about the article's counter-arguments. How does it address Wilber's claims about complexity science and the limitations of natural selection?

The article acknowledges that complexity science offers valuable insights into how order arises from simpler systems, but it emphasizes that these principles don't need a guiding Spirit to work. They can arise naturally from the interactions of simpler components.

Kind of like how flocks of birds fly in those intricate formations without a leader telling them what to do.

Perfect example. Complexity science shows us that intricate patterns and behaviors can emerge from simple rules and interactions. The article argues that this applies to evolution, too. Natural selection, working on random variations, can lead to super complex structures and organisms over time. There's no need for a guiding Spirit controlling everything

Makes sense. So the article is saying complexity of science doesn't contradict Darwin but rather adds another layer of understanding to it.

Exactly. It provides a framework for understanding how the seemingly random processes of natural selection can lead to such remarkable outcomes.

This has been a real eyeopener. We've explored Wilber's perspective with his emphasis on a spirit of evolution and considered the counter-arguments from the article highlighting the explanatory power of natural selection. and complexity science. I'm super curious to hear how you'll tie all this together as we wrap up this deep dive.

I'm looking forward to it, too. There's still a lot to unpack and discuss.

Wow, we've really covered a lot in this deep dive. From Wilber's spiritual take on evolution to Darwin's scientific approach, it's been a whirlwind of ideas. What do you think is the most important thing we've learned?

For me, it's that there are so many different ways to understand evolution. Wilber's perspective, even if it's outside mainstream science, gives us this really interesting lens to view things through like his focus on consciousness and a spirit of evolution. It makes us think about the deeper implications, you know, beyond just how evolution works.

It's like he's asking what's the meaning of all this? What's the purpose of this whole unfolding of life? Questions that science alone maybe can't answer.

Exactly. And even though the article we've been discussing pushes back on Wilber's ideas, it's important to remember that science doesn't have all the answers either. There's still so much about evolution we don't know.

True. True. It reminds us that what we know about the world is always changing. What we think is a scientific fact today might be totally different tomorrow as we learn more.

Absolutely. And that's what makes studying evolution so cool. It keeps us on our toes, forces us to think bigger and consider new possibilities.

So where does that leave us? Do we side with Wilber's spiritual view or stick with Darwin's science? Or is there some middle ground?

I don't think it's about picking a side. Both perspectives offer valuable insights and it's more about understanding the limits of each approach. Science is great at explaining the how, the mechanics, but philosophy and spirituality can help us wrestle with the why, the meaning behind it all.

It's like holding those different perspectives together, letting them inform each other without trying to squash them into one perfect answer.

Yeah, exactly. And honestly, that's a good lesson for any deep dive into a complex topic. There aren't always easy answers, clear-cut truths. Sometimes it's about embracing the mystery and never stopping asking questions.

Well said. I think this deep dive has really challenged how we think about Darwin and given us a new way to see evolution through Wilber's philosophy.

Definitely broadened our horizons and shown how science and spirituality are in conversation when we're trying to understand our place in this huge universe.

And as always, we want to leave you with something to chew on. If we move past this debate about what drives evolution, you know, pure natural processes or some guiding force, what new questions pop up about complexity, consciousness, and where we fit into it all? Maybe evolution isn't about finding the right answer, but appreciating how beautiful and mysterious it all is. The way chance and necessity work together, how complexity grows out of simplicity, this ever unfolding story of life, it's all part of a grand cosmic dance.

That's a beautiful thought. And on that note, we encourage you to keep exploring this amazing topic. Keep those questions coming and keep diving deep.

REFERENCES

[1] Frank Visser, 'Precisely nothing new or unusual', Ken Wilber on Darwin's Lasting Contribution", www.integralworld.net, November 2019.