• 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 vs. Charles Darwin

Spiritual Assimilation and Scientific Misunderstanding

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

I. Introduction

Ken Wilber has long positioned himself as a synthesizer of knowledge, integrating Eastern mysticism, Western philosophy, and modern science into a sweeping vision of cosmic evolution. Yet when it comes to one of the foundational figures of modern science—Charles Darwin—Wilber performs a remarkable sleight of hand. He appropriates Darwin into his metaphysical system while simultaneously discarding Darwin's central discoveries. As Frank Visser has argued in one of his most detailed and penetrating essays, Wilber does not merely reinterpret Darwin—he misrepresents him in a way that reveals serious flaws in Wilber's credibility as a reporter on science and philosophy.[1]

This essay will examine Wilber's treatment of Darwin, explore what he overlooks about the radical nature of Darwin's theory, and contrast his metaphysical assimilation of evolution with the clarity provided by modern neo-Darwinist thinkers such as Daniel Dennett. Ultimately, Wilber's version of evolution serves spiritual ideology more than scientific insight.

II. Wilber's Idealist Frame: Darwin Was "Nothing New"

Wilber frequently situates Darwin within a lineage of idealist philosophers like Schelling and Hegel, suggesting that the idea of evolution was already well understood in spiritual and philosophical terms before Darwin came along. According to Wilber, Darwin merely added empirical support to what these earlier thinkers already knew—that reality unfolds through developmental stages toward greater depth and complexity.

In Wilber's narrative, Darwin is not a revolutionary but a confirmatory figure. Evolution is seen as a cosmic process guided by Spirit or Eros, and Darwin's work is interpreted as just another data point supporting this perennial view. But this is a dramatic misunderstanding. What Darwin introduced was not simply the notion that species change over time, but a radical new explanation for how this happens: through random variation and natural selection, without any need for guiding intelligence or spiritual direction.

In glossing over this core mechanism, Wilber shows a deep lack of engagement with Darwin's scientific achievement. He doesn't merely subsume Darwin into his system—he neutralizes him.

III. The Darwinian Revolution: From Essence to Variation

Prior to Darwin, most evolutionary theories were transformationist or essentialist. Species were thought to unfold from within, expressing their inherent potentialities over time—an idea compatible with idealist and teleological metaphysics. Darwin broke with this tradition by introducing a variationist model. Evolution, he showed, proceeds not by inner necessity or cosmic purpose but by the differential survival of accidental variations.

Natural selection does not aim for higher stages; it is an impersonal mechanism that blindly filters traits based on environmental pressures. There is no ascent, no pre-given direction, no spiritual axis.

This was the revolution. And it is precisely what Wilber cannot integrate, because it contradicts his core belief in an ascending drive within the cosmos. For Wilber, evolution must be Spirit-driven. Darwinian randomness and selection seem too blind, too mechanical, too flat.

IV. What Wilber Ignores: The Core of Darwin's Mechanism

Wilber consistently underplays or omits discussion of natural selection. When he does mention it, it is typically treated as inadequate to explain the complexity of life. In its place, he posits Eros, a metaphysical force of self-organization that presumably guides matter toward ever greater depth, consciousness, and spiritual realization.

But Eros is not a scientific concept. It cannot be measured, tested, or falsified. It functions as a kind of placeholder for mystery, or more bluntly, as a spiritual deus ex machina. The scientific method, which Darwin exemplified in his careful empirical reasoning, is replaced by metaphysical intuition.

Wilber thus appeals to the language of evolution but disregards its substance. He wants the prestige of science without the discipline of its method.

V. Daniel Dennett and the Inversion of the Cosmic Pyramid

Daniel Dennett, one of the leading neo-Darwinian philosophers of our time, provides a stark contrast to Wilber's view. In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett argues that Darwin inverted the traditional view of cosmic order.[2] Before Darwin, thinkers assumed that complexity and purpose required a pre-existing Mind or Designer. This was the metaphysical pyramid:

In this view, a divine or cosmic intelligence imposes order on chaos. But Darwin's insight was that order can emerge from chaos without design. Mind is not the source of evolution; it is its product.

Dennett argues that Darwin dissolved the idea that design requires a designer. The appearance of purpose in nature could be explained by mindless processes. There is no need to invoke Spirit, Eros, or a divine teleology. Complexity arises through the blind, incremental accumulation of adaptive traits. This is not a flatland reduction—it is a flattening of unjustified metaphysical heights.

Wilber, by contrast, wants to re-erect the pyramid. He places Spirit at the top, insisting that blind processes cannot account for depth. But this move reintroduces the very supernaturalism that Darwin had eliminated. It is a metaphysical regression disguised as spiritual integration.

VI. Entropy, Complexity, and a Misunderstood Synthesis

Wilber has also attempted to absorb insights from complexity science to bolster his vision of an evolving cosmos. He often points out that while the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies a universal increase in entropy, complex systems emerge in defiance of this trend. Historically, this entropic principle was taken as a blow to idealist visions of cosmic ascent, suggesting that the universe was running down, not building up.

However, modern complexity science has clarified how local increases in order can emerge precisely through the flow of energy that increases overall entropy. Systems far from equilibrium—like weather systems, living organisms, and social structures—can develop surprising complexity as long as they remain open to energy and matter exchange.

Wilber uses this as support for his Eros hypothesis, implying that science now confirms his intuition of upward self-organization. But he overlooks a crucial point: complexity science does not require or invoke a metaphysical drive. Complexity emerges from physical conditions and interactions; it is bottom-up, not top-down. There is no need to posit an Eros guiding the process.

In absorbing the surface lesson—that complexity can grow amid entropy—Wilber misses the deeper insight: that such complexity arises because of entropy, not in spite of it. Energy gradients drive the formation of structure, but the process is mechanistic and contingent. Complexity science, like Darwinism, explains without transcendental purpose. Wilber once again borrows the appearance of scientific validation while discarding the explanatory framework.

VII. The Retreat from Empiricism

Another of Visser's key criticisms is that Wilber does not engage seriously with the empirical literature on evolution. His references to biology are often superficial, and he tends to rely on secondary or outdated sources. He portrays modern evolutionary theory as reductionist and inadequate, but rarely shows any sign of having studied it in depth.

Rather than confronting the rich debates within evolutionary science—from gene-centered views to evo-devo and systems biology—Wilber caricatures the field as spiritually blind. This rhetorical move allows him to position himself as offering a higher synthesis, while evading the hard work of scientific engagement.

In doing so, Wilber places himself outside the scientific conversation. His appeal to science becomes ornamental rather than operational.

VIII. Eros as a Cosmic Backdoor

The idea of Eros, central to Wilber's metaphysical system, functions as a cosmic backdoor to sneak purpose back into evolution. It allows him to claim that evolution is not just a physical process but a spiritual journey toward increasing consciousness.

But Eros is never defined in a testable way. It is not a hypothesis but a presupposition. It serves the narrative needs of Wilber's system but contributes nothing to evolutionary biology. Worse, it discredits his claim to be integrating science and spirituality. Real integration requires respect for the integrity of both domains. Wilber subordinates science to metaphysics.

As Visser notes, this approach results in neither good science nor honest spirituality. It is a hybrid that weakens both.

IX. The Costs of Misrepresentation

Wilber's treatment of Darwin has broader implications for his intellectual credibility. By misrepresenting a central figure in the history of science, he signals a willingness to bend facts to fit a preconceived system. This undermines his project of synthesis.

If one claims to be uniting the truths of science, philosophy, and mysticism, then one must represent each domain fairly. Darwin's theory is not compatible with spiritual teleology. It is a theory of how complexity can arise without purpose. To assimilate it into a spiritual worldview is to deny what made it revolutionary.

Wilber wants evolution to mean progress. But evolution means adaptation. Sometimes that leads to greater complexity; sometimes not. There is no cosmic guarantee. That is the power of Darwin's idea—and its discomfort.

X. Conclusion: A Case Study in Philosophical Overreach

Frank Visser's careful dissection of Wilber's reading of Darwin reveals more than a scholarly disagreement. It exposes a pattern of selective assimilation, in which Wilber cherry-picks concepts from science to support a pre-existing spiritual metaphysics.

By absorbing Darwin into his system while discarding the theory's central mechanisms, Wilber demonstrates a lack of respect for the integrity of scientific thought. He replaces Darwin's dangerous idea with a comforting myth.

In doing so, he forfeits credibility as a bridge-builder between science and spirituality. He is not translating science into a broader vision; he is colonizing it.

The result is not an integral philosophy but a spiritualized narrative that speaks more to wishful thinking than to empirical reality.

Real integration demands more courage—and more humility—than Wilber has shown in his treatment of Darwin.

NOTES

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

[2] Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Penguin, 1995, p. 64.

It is instructive to read what Dennett writes here about the Great Chain of Being:

A prominent feature of pre-Darwinian world-views is an overall top-to-bottom map of things... Everything finds its place on one level or another of the Cosmic Pyramid, even blank nothingness, the ultimate foundation. Not all matter is Ordered, some is in Chaos; only some Ordered matter is also Designed; only some Designed things have Minds, and of course only one Mind is God. God, the first Mind, is the source and explanation of everything underneath...

What is the difference between Order and Design? As a first stab, we might say that Order is a mere regularity, mere pattern; Design is Aristoteles' telos, an exploitation of Order for a purpose, such as we see in a cleverly designed artifact. The solar system exhibits stupendous Order, but does not (apparently) have a purpose—it isn't for anything. An eye, in contrast, is for seeing. Before Darwin this distinction was not always clearly marked...

Darwin suggested a division: Give me Order, he says, and time, and I will give you Design. Let me start with regularity—the mere purposeless, mindless, pointless regularity of physics—and I will show you a process that eventually will yield products that exhibit not just regularity but purposive design. (This was just what Karl Marx thought he saw when he declared that Darwin had dealt a death blow to Teleology: Darwin had reduced teleology to nonteleology, Design to Order). (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Chapter 3, Universal Acid; Section 2. Darwin's Assault on the Cosmic Pyramid).

This analysis flatly contradicts Wilber's Great Chain of Being narrative, even if re-interpreted to a modern version, but the only thing Wilber will quote from Dennett is that he sees evolution as a "universal acid".[3] Again, missing the radicality of Darwin. And he runs with the idea of telos, applying it indiscriminately to the cosmos at large.

[3] In The Marriage of Sense and Soul (1998) Wilber uses this expression twice:

Most of the early scientists, of course, remained true believers, genuinely embracing the God of the Church; many of them sincerely believed that they were simply discovering God's archetypal laws as revealed in the book of nature. And yet, with the introduction of the scientific method, a universal acid was released that would slowly, inevitably, painfully eat into and corrode the centuries-old steel of religion, dissolving, often beyond recognition, virtually all of its central tenets and dogmas. (p. ix)

Henceforth, any spirituality that did not embrace evolution was doomed to extinction. Modern science, after the collapse, would reject the spiritual nature of evolution but retain the notion of evolution itself. Modern science, that is, would give us the exteriors of evolution—its surfaces and forms—but not its interiors— including Spirit itself. But even science would realize that evolution is universal, touching everything in existence, and, as Daniel Dennett put it, "like 'universal acid,' evolution eats through every other explanation for life, mind, and culture." How could it not, when it is actually Spirit-in-action, and Spirit embraces all? (p. 110-111)

You can see here how Wilber incorporates ideas from science whenever they fit his worldview—in all other cases they are rejected as reductionism.