• 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's Evolutionary Vision: More Spencerian than Darwinian

A Historical and Philosophical Analysis
Through the Lens of Peter Bowler

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction: Two Evolutionary Traditions

In Evolution: The History of an Idea, historian Peter Bowler outlines the development of evolutionary thought from the early modern period through Darwin and beyond. He emphasizes a crucial distinction between two strands of evolutionary thinking that emerged in the 19th century: the empirical naturalism of Charles Darwin and the metaphysical progressivism of Herbert Spencer. Darwinian evolution, grounded in natural selection, presents a non-directional, adaptive, and contingent process. Spencerian evolution, in contrast, is a cosmic, teleological ascent from simplicity to complexity, matter to mind, and ultimately spirit.

Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, which purports to synthesize science, philosophy, and spirituality, reveals a strong affinity with the Spencerian tradition. Despite invoking modern science, Wilber embeds his worldview in a metaphysical framework that assumes inherent directionality and spiritual ascent. This essay argues that Wilber's evolutionary cosmology should be interpreted not as a scientific theory in dialogue with Darwin but as a contemporary variant of Spencerian idealism.

To clarify this argument, we examine Darwin's and Spencer's differing assumptions about evolution, Bowler's historical framing of their legacies, and Wilber's appropriation and transformation of these ideas. We further contrast Wilber's approach with the empirically grounded narrative of Big History, suggesting that his spiritual metaphysics diverges sharply from the naturalistic foundations of evolutionary science. We conclude by examining the implications of Wilber's stance for philosophy, science, and spiritual discourse.

1. Darwin's Legacy: A Theory Without Direction

Charles Darwin revolutionized biology by explaining how complex adaptations could arise from simple, unintelligent processes. His model of evolution by natural selection emphasized variation, inheritance, and differential survival. Importantly, it did not assume any intrinsic direction to evolution. Organisms adapt to their local environments; if complexity arises, it does so contingently and without cosmic intent.

As Bowler notes, Darwin's theory struck at the heart of Victorian assumptions about progress and design. Nature was no longer a moral guidebook or a ladder of being—it was a web of branching paths shaped by struggle and chance. This lack of teleology was the most unsettling aspect of Darwinism for both scientists and theologians. The apparent purposelessness of evolution led many to search for philosophical or spiritual supplements to Darwin's vision.

What is crucial here is the methodological humility of Darwin's approach. He resisted the temptation to project human values onto nature. Evolution, for Darwin, was not a drama of ascent or spiritual revelation but a physical, observable process grounded in empirical patterns. Its explanatory power came precisely from its refusal to assume what it could not demonstrate.

2. Wilber's Blind Spot: Caricaturing Darwin

Ken Wilber, despite his stated ambition to integrate scientific insights, rarely engages with Darwinian evolution on its own terms. Instead, he consistently misrepresents it as a shallow, mechanistic, and spiritually bankrupt worldview. In numerous writings, he dismisses natural selection as incapable of explaining novelty, creativity, or inner depth. He claims it reduces life to “matter in motion” and implies that Darwinian science is blind to the interior dimensions of existence.

This rhetorical strategy reflects a fundamental blind spot. Rather than addressing the philosophical richness or empirical successes of Darwinism, Wilber often resorts to sarcasm and caricature. He implies that Darwinian theorists believe complex biological structures emerged through sheer randomness or that consciousness accidentally arose from dead matter. But this is a straw man. In fact, modern evolutionary theory accounts for both gradual adaptation and emergent complexity through mechanisms such as gene regulation, epigenetics, and systems biology.

Wilber's mischaracterizations function rhetorically to elevate his own metaphysical system. By presenting Darwinism as a simplistic foil, he can more easily justify his claim that a spiritual force—what he calls “Eros”—must be guiding evolution. Yet this rhetorical move bypasses the real philosophical challenge posed by Darwin: that complex, meaningful systems can arise without pre-existing design.

Spicily enough, Wilber has even called Darwin an “obscurantist,” accusing him of obscuring the spiritual nature of evolution.[1] Yet in an ironic reversal, it is Wilber himself who obscures scientific clarity by cloaking evolutionary processes in mystical poetry. Rather than illuminating the mechanisms of change, he substitutes metaphysical metaphors that blur the line between myth and method. What Darwin revealed through empirical grit, Wilber veils in spiritual allegory—trading explanatory rigor for cosmic storytelling.

3. Spencerian Progressivism: Cosmic Ascent and Universal Law

Herbert Spencer offered a grander, more metaphysical vision of evolution. He defined it as the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, a principle he saw operating throughout the universe. For Spencer, evolution was not limited to biology—it governed the cosmos, society, mind, and morality. All domains were unfolding toward greater differentiation and integration.

Spencer's theory was appealing because it resonated with Victorian ideals of progress and civilization. It allowed people to see evolution as a moral drama, in which humanity plays a central role. As Bowler notes, Spencer's influence extended beyond science to education, psychology, and religion. But his approach was criticized for its speculative nature and for projecting social and cultural values onto nature.

Wilber inherits Spencer's vision but recasts it in transpersonal terms. His AQAL framework (All Quadrants, All Levels) charts evolution from matter to life, life to mind, and mind to Spirit. Each stage represents not only increasing complexity but increasing consciousness and integration. Like Spencer, Wilber sees evolution as a universal law, not a contingent process.

4. Wilber's Eros: Metaphysics in Disguise

Wilber introduces “Eros” as the spiritual drive behind evolution. It is not a personal deity but a deep impulse in the fabric of the cosmos that urges complexity and self-awareness. He writes of this force as a kind of cosmic yearning for unity and wholeness, a teleological pull operating within the universe. This idea, while poetic, sits uneasily with empirical science.

For Wilber, Eros explains why evolution does not stall or regress. It accounts for the emergence of novelty, the rise of consciousness, and the directionality of history. But Eros is not an observable mechanism. It is a metaphysical postulate that gives spiritual meaning to the evolutionary story. This is where Wilber departs most sharply from Darwin.

Bowler's analysis helps us see this move for what it is: a return to metaphysics under the guise of integration. Like Spencer, Wilber uses the language of science to support a spiritually inflected narrative. But in doing so, he conflates empirical patterns with value-laden hierarchies. Evolution becomes not just a process but a moral and spiritual imperative.

5. Big History: A Modern, Naturalistic Grand Narrative

In contrast, the field of Big History offers a sweeping account of cosmic evolution without invoking metaphysical forces. Pioneered by David Christian and others, Big History traces the emergence of complexity across scales—from quarks to galaxies, life to civilization. It relies on interdisciplinary data from physics, chemistry, biology, and anthropology.[2]

Big History identifies “thresholds” where new levels of order emerge: the formation of stars, the origin of life, the development of symbolic language. Each threshold requires specific conditions and energy flows. Yet Big History avoids attributing purpose to these transitions. It maintains a rigorously naturalistic stance, offering awe without teleology.

This approach stands as a powerful alternative to Wilber's Eros-based narrative. It shows that one can construct a meaningful, inspiring account of the universe without appealing to spiritual metaphysics. It preserves the grandeur of the evolutionary story while respecting the limits of empirical knowledge.

6. The Problem of the Third Eye: Epistemological Overreach

Wilber frequently invokes the idea of the “Three Eyes” of knowing: the Eye of Flesh (empirical perception), the Eye of Mind (rational thought), and the Eye of Spirit (direct mystical insight). He claims that only the third eye can resolve the great metaphysical dualisms: mind/body, subject/object, free will/causality. Yet this formulation risks privileging spiritual insight over other forms of knowledge without sufficient justification.

In practice, the “third eye” becomes a trump card—used to override empirical findings or philosophical difficulties. By invoking mystical vision, Wilber suggests that problems like the hard problem of consciousness or the origin of morality can be transcended rather than solved. But this approach may sidestep rather than resolve philosophical tensions. It offers closure without critical interrogation.

7. The Philosophical Stakes: Science, Spirituality, and Myth

Wilber's project is best understood not as evolutionary science, but as a spiritual myth of cosmic ascent. Myths are powerful tools for meaning-making, and Wilber's vision resonates with contemporary seekers disillusioned with materialism. But to call it science is misleading.

Bowler's historical framework reminds us that metaphysical readings of evolution often reflect the anxieties and aspirations of their time. Whether in Spencer's Victorian optimism or Wilber's transpersonal idealism, these visions blur the line between description and prescription. They turn evolutionary facts into moral imperatives.

By misrepresenting Darwin and neglecting the hard-won discipline of scientific humility, Wilber risks undermining the very integration he seeks. A true synthesis would require engaging Darwinism on its own terms, acknowledging contingency and complexity without importing teleology. Only then could a philosophy of evolution honor both the insights of science and the depths of spirit.

Conclusion: From Blind Spot to Balanced Vision

Ken Wilber's evolutionary cosmology is Spencerian in spirit, metaphysical in structure, and mythological in tone. Despite his appeal to integration, he remains blind to the core insights of Darwinian evolution. This blind spot manifests not only in his caricatures of natural selection but in his failure to grapple with the philosophical implications of a non-teleological cosmos.

Bowler's historical work helps us recognize this blind spot and its consequences. In privileging spiritual ascent over empirical complexity, Wilber transforms evolution from a scientific theory into a metaphysical narrative. While this may serve existential needs, it blurs the boundary between knowledge and belief.

If we are to pursue a balanced evolutionary philosophy, we must see with both clarity and humility. We must distinguish the poetic from the empirical, the inspiring from the testable. In doing so, we may not dissolve all dualisms—but we can learn to navigate them with intellectual honesty and imaginative depth.

Wilber's third eye may offer a rich vision of human potential, but it cannot substitute for the hard-earned insights of evolutionary science. To see truly, we must use all our eyes—without letting any one become blind to the others.

NOTES

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

[2] Frank Visser, "The Dissipative Universe and the Paradox of Complexity: A Review of David Christian's Origin Story", www.integralworld.net, June 2018