• 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).

The Spirit of Evolution

Integral World Podcast #9

Frank Visser / NotebookLM

This is an informal, AI-generated conversation by Google's NotebookLM, based on "The Spirit of Evolution Reconsidered" written by Frank Visser in 2010.[1]

All right. So, today we're um we're diving into evolution.

Oh, cool.

But, uh not just the typical stuff, you know, we're going to see how it gets tangled up with spirituality.

Specifically with Ken Wilber.

Yeah. Wilber.

He's a uh a big name in integral theory.

Yeah. He tries to bridge this gap between hard science and spirituality.

Yeah.

It's fascinating.

Yeah. And he suggests that evolution might be driven by this force he calls Spirit.

Spirit or sometimes, right? Eros. He even has this phrase, there's an Eros to the Kosmos.

Okay. Yeah, that sounds kind of cool, right? It does.

Like there's some grand design to it all.

Right.

But to really um dissect this, we're turning to an essay.

Okay.

Called "The Spirit of Evolution Reconsidered".

Okay.

By Frank Visser.

All right.

And Visser doesn't exactly buy into Wilber's whole spiel.

Oh, really?

Yeah. He takes a much more critical stance.

That's what makes this deep dive so important.

Yeah.

We're not just blindly accepting Wilber's claims. We're going to put them under the microscope, see if they hold up.

Exactly. Figuring out where solid science ends, right?

And where things get a little too metaphorical.

So, the core question is, does Wilber's idea of a spiritual force actually hold any scientific weight?

Yeah.

Or is he maybe blending science and poetry?

It's a good question.

In a way that could mislead people.

Yeah. People looking for that uh a more feel-good approach.

Yeah, feel good approach to understanding the universe.

So to answer that, we need to break down what Wilber is actually proposing.

Okay.

His central idea is that evolution isn't just this random biological process, but a spiritual one. Okay.

Guided by this Spirit or Eros, right?

Right. Yeah. And this echoes ideas you find in various spiritual and esoteric traditions.

Exactly.

Right. It kind of taps into that ancient human desire to believe there's a purpose and meaning behind it all.

I agree.

But before we get too carried away with that. Let's just make sure we're all on the same page about the science.

The scientific foundation. Exactly. Let's establish that baseline.

Yeah.

So, neo-darwinian evolution, the prevailing scientific theory hinges on two key mechanisms.

Okay.

Random mutation and natural selection.

All right. Survival of the fittest, right? The best adapted genes get to keep going.

But Wilber argues that this whole neo-darwinian thing is outdated.

Interesting.

He even goes as far as to say that "absolutely nobody believes this anymore". He uses this example talking about how wings could have possibly evolved from forlegs

Okay wings...

He claims it would require 100 simultaneous mutations which he says is scientifically impossible.

Well that's where things get a little tricky. Wilber's example of wings is actually a classic creationist argument

So he's using an argument that's typically used by people who oppose evolution altogether. Iit does raise questions about his approach and his claim that nobody believes in neo-darwinism anymore. It's just plain inaccurate.

Really, the scientific consensus on the validity of neo-darwinian evolution is incredibly strong.

Wow.

In fact, the new Encyclopedia Britannica states that evolution is supported by such a vast body of evidence that it is difficult to imagine how it could be overturned.

So, is he setting up this false dichotomy?

You're hitting on a key point here.

Yeah.

Wilber's rhetoric is creating this unnecessary either-or scenario.

Okay, it's important to understand that scientific discourse doesn't work that way, right?

Scientists are constantly refining and expanding their understanding of evolution, right?

But that doesn't mean the core principles are being thrown out the window.

Okay, so let's go back to Wilber's wing example for a second.

Yeah,

He makes it sound like a creature would need a fully formed, perfectly functional wing to gain any evolutionary advantage.

Yeah, but wouldn't even a small proto wing, maybe just a flap of skin...

You're absolutely right to question that assumption. Take for example uh wing assisted incline running.

Oh wow.

Scientists actually call it where studies on baby chicks have shown that even tiny developing wings help them run up slopes and even vertical surfaces. Giving them a clear advantage when escaping predators.

So it's not like you need a full-blown wing right out of the gate to get some benefit.

Exactly.

Even a partially developed wing could be a lifesaver.

Precisely. And this concept applies to other complex features too.

Okay.

Like eyes. Eyes have actually evolved independently from scratch dozens of times throughout history.

Dozens of times.

Different creatures, different environments, but the same selective pressure for better vision.

So if the wing example is flawed, what about Wilber's argument that the odds of life arising by pure chance are just astronomically small?

That's where we need to bring in Richard Dawkins and his concept of the blind watchmaker. Evolution isn't just about blind luck. It's about this interplay between random mutations and the very non-random force of natural selection.

Okay, so it's not like scientists are saying, well, a bunch of random stuff happen and boom, here's a giraffe with a super long neck.

Exactly.

There's a method to the madness.

Dawkins argues that design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. It is the only workable solution that is ever been suggested.

But Wilber does try to use some scientific terms to back up his ideas, right?

Yeah, he does.

I remember him mentioning things like quantum evolution, right, and punctuated equilibrium.

You're right. He does sprinkle in some technical jargon, but it's crucial to understand that these concepts while sometimes debated within the scientific community, still operate within the framework of evolutionary theory.

So, it's kind of like he's name dropping these complex scientific ideas.

It's a possibility worth considering.

Yeah, it's vital to remember that just because science acknowledges gaps in our current knowledge, that doesn't automatically validate spiritual explanations, right?

Science is a process of ongoing discovery.

And speaking of gaps in knowledge, yes, here's where things get really interesting.

Okay, years after making those bold claims about wings and eyes being impossible to evolve, Wilber kind of backtracked and said those examples were actually just metaphors, which raises the question: Can any scientific challenge to his ideas simply be waved away as a metaphor?

It does seem a bit convenient, doesn't it?

It does raise some eyebrows. And it's not the only time Wilber has shifted his focus when faced with scientific push back.

Oh, really?

He later pointed to the immune system.

The immune system as an example of a complex system that supposedly can't be explained by evolution.

But that's incredibly complex, right?

It might seem that way on the surface.

Yeah.

But here's where things get ironic.

Okay.

Michael Behe, a major proponent of intelligent design actually used that very same argument about the immune system during a court case.

Oh no. What happened?

Well, under oath he had to admit that he hadn't actually read the vast scientific literature. Explaining how the immune system evolved.

So Wilber is essentially using the same debunk argument.

Well, Wilber has said that if materialism, meaning purely physical processes, can fully explain evolution, then he'll happily include it in his integral theory.

So, what does that even mean?

That's a great question.

Yeah, it gets to the heart of what we're trying to unpack here.

Okay.

Is Wilber creating this false dichotomy where it's either science or Spirit?

It does seem like he's presenting a pretty black and white view of things.

It does, and it's worth considering. Even if we accept that evolution might have a direction, as Wilber argues, does that direction have to be spiritual?

Those are some heavy questions to ponder. We are and that's why it's so important to have these conversations to dig deep and not settle for easy answers.

Right. We've covered a lot of ground.

Welcome back.

As we delve deeper into this, I can't help but think about the broader philosophical implications of Wilber's ideas.

Yeah.

Like if evolution is driven by this Eros, this spiritual force. What does that mean for our understanding of purpose and meaning in the universe?

That's a huge question, right?

Does it imply there's some grand Plan.

Yeah. Like some ultimate goal, right, that evolution is moving towards.

It is tempting, especially in a world that often feels chaotic and random.

It is tempting. Yeah.

But it's important to remember that Wilber's Eros is not a scientific concept, right?

It's a philosophical or spiritual one.

And while there's nothing wrong with exploring those realms, sure, we need to be cautious about conflating them with scientific explanations.

Right. It's about recognizing those boundaries, not letting one bleed. into the other.

But I'm also curious about those who do embrace Wilber's ideas. What are they seeking?

That's likely part of it.

For many, the idea of a purely materialistic universe, one where everything is governed by chance and necessity can feel cold and meaningless, right?

Wilber's Eros offers an alternative, a way to see purpose and direction in the evolutionary process.

It's like that age-old debate, right?

Yeah.

Chance versus design.

And in a way, Wilber is arguing for a kind of design.

Yeah.

Just not the traditional intelligent designer kind.

Exactly. And that's where things get interesting because if we accept that evolution might have a direction as Wilber suggests, does that direction have to be spiritual?

Okay. So, what might those other interpretations be?

Well, one possibility is that the constraints of physics and chemistry, the fundamental laws of nature, right,

might inherently channel evolution along certain pathways.

Okay, think about it.

Yeah, life on Earth is built from a limited set of elements and those elements interact in specific ways governed by those unyielding laws of physics.

So you're saying that even without a guiding hand the very nature of reality might push evolution in certain directions.

Yeah.

Like there are only so many ways to build a functional organism.

Exactly.

Given the materials and rules of the game.

And another factor to consider is the interconnectedness of life.

Okay.

Organisms don't evolve in isolation, right? They evolve in ecosystems in constant interaction with other species.

Okay.

This creates a kind of feedback loop where the evolution of one species can influence the evolution of others.

Oh wow.

And so on.

So it's like an intricate dance.

That's a great analogy.

Yeah. And it highlights how complex systems even without a conscious guiding force can exhibit emergent properties. Properties that arise from the interactions of the individual components.

Okay, so we've got these alternative explanations for a directional trend in evolution, right?

But let's go back to Wilber's use of scientific language.

Okay, we touched on quantum evolution earlier, but I'm still a bit fuzzy on what that actually means,

right? It's one of those terms that can sound very scientific and profound. But often gets misused or misinterpreted.

Okay.

In essence, quantum evolution usually refers to the idea that quantum phenomena, like quantum tunneling or entanglement, might play a role in evolutionary processes.

Okay, but how would that work?

That's the million-dollar question.

Yeah, and it's where things get very speculative, right? Some researchers propose that quantum effects might influence mutations.

Okay.

Potentially speeding up the evolutionary process or introducing novel variations.

But is there any solid evidence to support these claims?

To be honest, it's still very much on the fringes of scientific inquiry. Okay, there's a lot of theoretical work, but the experimental evidence is scarce.

So, that's where we need to be cautious.

Just because something could be true doesn't mean it is true.

We can't just jump to conclusions.

Exactly.

Or fill in the gaps in our knowledge with whatever sounds most appealing, right?

We need to stick with the evidence.

Absolutely.

But that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge those gaps and remain open to new discoveries.

Absolutely. Science is all about embracing uncertainty, pushing the boundaries of our own understanding and sometimes those gaps lead to the most exciting breakthroughs.

Okay. So, we've delved into alternative explanations for a directional trend in evolution, right?

And we've unpacked the complexities of quantum evolution.

Yeah.

But there's still this lingering question about Wilber's overall approach.

Is he genuinely seeking a deeper understanding of evolution?

That's a tough question to answer definitively. I think it's likely a mix of factors. On one hand, Wilber clearly has a deep interest in bridging the gap between science and spirituality. He sees himself as a kind of intellectual integrator.

Okay, weaving together different ways of knowing.

But on the other hand, there's that persistent critique, right, that he's cherrypicking scientific concepts, misinterpreting them, or presenting them out of context.

And that's where the line between genuine intellectual inquiry and ideological bias can get blurry. And it's why it's so important for us as critical thinkers to be aware of those potential biases both in Wilber's work and in our own thinking.

So, as we wrap up this part of our deep dive, what's the key takeaway for our listeners?

I think the most important message is this. Don't be afraid to ask tough questions, right?

Challenge assumptions, both Wilber's and your own. Don't settle for easy answers, okay? Or grand narratives that oversimplify the complexities of the world.

It's about embracing the messiness, the uncertainty and the wonder of it all and remembering that the journey of discovery is just as important as the destination maybe even more so.

And with that, let's take a short break and then come back for the final part of our deep dive.

Okay. Where we'll explore some of the potential consequences of misinterpreting scientific concepts like evolution. Okay. So, we're back.

Yeah. Ready to wrap up this deep dive?

Yeah. Into Wilber's take on evolution.

Right. It's been quite a journey.

It has. We've explored Wilber's core arguments, unpacked the scientific counterpoints, and even ventured into some pretty philosophical territory.

Yeah. And as we enter this final stretch, I think it's crucial to consider the potential consequences of misinterpreting scientific concepts, right? Especially one as fundamental as evolution. Because we're not just talking about abstract ideas here. These ideas have real world implications, right? When they filter down into popular culture.

Exactly. influence how people perceive the world around them.

And one of the dangers of blending scientific terminology with spiritual concepts is that it can create a sort of pseudocientific veneer, that makes those spiritual claims seem more credible than they actually are.

Like throwing around terms like quantum evolution might make it sound like science is on the verge of validating some mystical worldview.

Right. When in reality, the evidence is far from conclusive.

Exactly.

It's about recognizing that science is a process, right? A rigorous and often slow process of hypothesis testing, data collection, and peer review.

And when it comes to evolution, right, those misinterpretations can have some pretty significant consequences.

Yeah. We've already seen how creationists have latched on to certain arguments.

Oh yeah. Like Wilber's wing example to try to undermine the entire theory of evolution.

So that's a slippery slope, right? Because once you start questioning the validity of evolution, right, it opens the door to all sorts of other problematic ideas..

Like what? Give us some examples.

Well, for one, it can lead to a rejection of science in general, a distrust of experts and evidence-based reasoning.

Okay.

We see this playing out in the antivaccine movement. Climate change denial and other areas where scientific consensus is met with skepticism and conspiracy theories.

So, it's not just about evolution itself, right?

It's about eroding trust in the scientific method as a whole.

Exactly.

Which can have farreaching consequences.

And when it comes to evolution specifically, yeah, those misinterpretations can also fuel social inequalities and prejudices.

Okay, I'm intrigued.

Yeah.

How can misunderstanding evolution lead to those kinds of problems?

Well, throughout history, distorted versions of evolutionary theory have been used to justify racism, sexism.

Oh, wow.

Other forms of discrimination.

The idea that certain groups of people are more evolved than others has been used to rationalize oppression and exploitation.

So, you're saying that by misinterpreting evolution, people can create these false hierarchies.

That's right.

These us versus them narratives that can be incredibly damaging.

And it's important to remember that the scientific theory of evolution does not endorse or support those kinds of views.

Evolution is about adaptation to environments, about the diversity and interconnectedness of life.

So, how do we combat these misinterpretations?

I think education is key.

Education.

We need to equip people with the tools to critically evaluate information to distinguish between genuine science and pseudocience and not just in formal educational settings. I mean we're having this conversation on a podcast which is a form of informal education.

Exactly. It's about making these complex topics accessible and engaging for a wider audience.

We need to find creative ways to communicate science.

Absolutely.

To tell the stories of scientific discovery because at the end of the day science is not just about cold hard facts, right? It's about curiosity, wonder, and a deep appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the natural world.

And that sense of wonder, that's what can really spark a lifelong love of learning and a desire to understand the universe around us.

Yeah, makes sense.

So, as we wrap up this deep dive into Wilber's ideas and the broader implications of misinterpreting evolution, what's the ultimate message we want to leave our listeners with?

I think it comes down to this. Be curious. Be critical. And be open to new ideas.

Be open. Yeah.

But don't just accept things blindly. Ask questions. Dig deep.

Dig deep.

And always be willing to update your understanding as new evidence emerges.

Beautifully said. And remember, the journey of understanding evolution and really any scientific concept is an ongoing process. it's not about arriving at some final definitive answer. It's about embracing the mystery and continuing to explore.

Exactly. And that's the beauty of it, isn't it? There's always more to learn.

Always more to learn.

More to discover. Yeah.

And that's what makes science so exciting and so vital to our understanding of the world.

Well, on that note, we've reached the end of our deep dive.

It's been a pleasure.

Thanks for joining us on this exploration of evolution, spirituality, and the importance of critical thinking.

It has been.

And to our listeners, keep questioning, keep exploring, and keep diving deep.

REFERENCES

[1] Frank Visser, ""The 'Spirit of Evolution' Reconsidered, Relating Ken Wilber's view of spiritual evolution to the current evolution debates", www.integralworld.net, 2010.