• 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).

Monkeys and Metaphysics

Ken Wilber, Bishop Wilberforce,
and the Legacy of Scientific Ridicule

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

In the mid-nineteenth century, as Darwin's revolutionary ideas about evolution began to ripple through the intellectual world, a dramatic moment occurred at the Oxford University Museum in 1860. During a debate on Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce famously asked whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that Thomas Henry Huxley claimed descent from an ape. Huxley's biting response has since become legend: he would rather be descended from a monkey than be a man who misuses his intellect to obscure the truth. This exchange has echoed through history not just as a defense of evolution, but as a symbolic clash between a newly emerging scientific worldview and the defenders of religious orthodoxy.[1]

More than a century later, a curious parallel can be drawn to the intellectual landscape of the early twenty-first century. On one side stands Ken Wilber, a spiritual philosopher whose Integral Theory ambitiously attempts to synthesize science, religion, psychology, and mysticism into a single framework. On the other side stands Frank Visser, once a Wilber devotee and founder of the Integral World website, who gradually shifted toward a defense of what Wilber now derides as "flatland" science—materialistic, empirical, and rigorously skeptical of grand metaphysical narratives.[2]

Like Bishop Wilberforce before him, Ken Wilber finds himself on the defensive against evolutionary biology—not because he denies evolution per se, but because he insists on supplementing it with an inner spiritual teleology. In his grand narrative, evolution is not merely the result of blind chance and natural selection; it is the unfolding of Spirit-in-action, driven by Eros, a cosmic drive toward complexity, consciousness, and self-realization. For Wilber, the purely materialist account of evolution is “catastrophically incomplete!”[3] But the result is a strangely familiar spectacle: a metaphysical thinker ridiculing the very science that upended religious dogma a century and a half ago.

Wilber's dismissal of scientific orthodoxy—even while co-opting its language—echoes Wilberforce's blend of mockery and moral concern. In both cases, science is portrayed as spiritually inadequate, blind to higher truths, and in need of correction by a superior synthesis. Just as the Bishop saw Darwinian evolution as a threat to divine purpose, Wilber sees it as dangerously reductionistic unless framed within his own metaphysical cosmology. While his vocabulary is postmodern and his tone more nuanced than Wilberforce's, the rhetorical pattern remains: ridicule the science as simplistic, invoke a deeper Truth, and position oneself as its custodian.

In this drama, Frank Visser steps into the role of Huxley—not as a defender of atheistic scientism, but as someone who ultimately finds more value in hard-won empirical knowledge than in sweeping mystical visions. Like Huxley, who championed evolution as a natural process grounded in evidence, Visser argues that spiritual interpretations of evolution often obscure more than they reveal. His critiques of Wilber, especially in collaboration with thinkers like David Lane, stress the need for intellectual humility in the face of complex biological processes that resist teleological projection.

Visser's shift away from Wilber's spiritual idealism toward a defense of “extremely conventional” science is often ridiculed by Integralists, just as Huxley's embrace of Darwinian descent was mocked by ecclesiastical conservatives. But in both cases, the commitment to methodological rigor and intellectual honesty outweighs the allure of metaphysical grandeur. Huxley's willingness to accept monkey ancestry was not a celebration of primates but a defense of reason; likewise, Visser's insistence on empirical science is not a rejection of meaning but a refusal to dilute knowledge with speculative myth.

This parallel invites us to reconsider who truly upholds the spirit of inquiry. Is it the metaphysician who spins vast narratives to make the universe feel more purposeful, or the skeptic who prefers a modest truth to a beautiful illusion? In casting himself as the visionary synthesizer, Wilber—like Wilberforce—risks becoming the very figure he once opposed: the gatekeeper of a dogma disguised as depth. Meanwhile, Visser, like Huxley, may lack the cosmic poetry of his counterpart, but he offers something just as vital—an insistence that our grasp of the world must begin, and often end, with what can be known.

This is not to equate Wilber's integral project wholesale with religious orthodoxy. His vision is more supple, his critique of modernity more refined, and his engagement with psychology and culture more informed than anything Wilberforce could have imagined. But the rhetorical dynamic remains telling: the appeal to higher insight to dismiss scientific consensus, the resistance to naturalistic explanations of complexity, and the veiled disdain for the “merely empirical” all suggest a kind of metaphysical elitism.

In the end, the battle is not merely between evolution and creation, or between science and spirituality, but between two different ways of honoring truth. One is romantic and expansive, willing to risk error for the sake of vision. The other is skeptical and restrained, willing to risk banality for the sake of accuracy. In this clash, the ghost of Huxley may well smile upon Frank Visser—not because he has all the answers, but because he refuses to let Eros do the thinking for him.[4]

NOTES

[1] Keith Thomson, "Huxley, Wilberforce and the Oxford Museum", American Scientist, 2000:

After the "debate" at the Oxford University Museum, 140 years ago this June 30, Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Henry Huxley became part of science's mythology. Bishop Wilberforce is supposed to have asked Huxley sarcastically whether "it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey." Huxley supposedly whispered an aside to Sir Benjamin Brodie, "the Lord hath delivered him unto my hand," and then responded, "If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape." Or words to that effect.

[2] Wilber, K. (2014). Taking evolution into account, 2014, Fourth Turning Conference, video #4 (quoted in "Ken Wilber's Problematic Relationship to Science", Integral Review vol. 16, nr. 2, August 2020):

To get one species from another requires several mutations. It's well-known that the vast majority of mutations are lethal, so we would have to have several extremely unlikely mutations all occurring at once in the same animal. But even more unbelievable, the exact same number and type of mutations would have to occur in another animal of the opposite sex, in order for them to procreate and pass on the new mutations. And even more unbelievable yet, these two would have to find each other—what if one is in Siberia and the other in Mexico? The odds of all of those happening is basically zero.

[3] Ken Wilber, "'The modern theory of evolution is catastrophically incomplete!', Ken Wilber's Emotive Dealings with Evolutionary Theory", www.integralworld.net, September 2019.

[4] See also: "Frank Visser, "Accepting the Radicality of Darwin: The Religious Orthodoxy of Ken Wilber", www.integralworld.net, for more on Wilber vs. Wilberforce.

Appendix: Debunking Wilber's Quote

Please analyze Wilber's quote given above:

Ken Wilber's quote about evolution is a classic example of misunderstanding—or misrepresenting—how evolutionary biology actually works. Let's break it down point by point and explain where it goes wrong, using mainstream scientific understanding.

Wilber's claim in summary:

1. Speciation requires several mutations, which must occur simultaneously.
2. Most mutations are lethal, so having several helpful ones at once is extremely improbable.
3. These same mutations would need to occur in another animal of the opposite sex.
4. These two would have to find each other to mate, even if geographically distant.
5. Therefore, speciation is statistically impossible.

Point-by-point Rebuttal

1. "To get one species from another requires several mutations—all at once."

Wrong:

Evolution does not require multiple advantageous mutations to occur simultaneously. Speciation is a gradual process that occurs over many generations through the accumulation of small genetic changes, often driven by natural selection, genetic drift, and geographic isolation.

Scientific view:

• Most species do not arise through sudden, saltational (jump-like) mutation events.
• New species typically arise via population-level processes, not individual "super-mutants."
• Allopatric speciation, for instance, occurs when populations become geographically separated and evolve independently.

2. "Most mutations are lethal, so several beneficial ones at once is highly unlikely."

Misleading:

While it's true that most large mutations can be harmful or neutral, not all mutations are lethal. Most are neutral; some are beneficial in context.

Scientific view:

• Beneficial mutations can spread slowly through a population.
• Speciation often involves regulatory mutations, which fine-tune existing genes, not wholesale creation of new ones.
• The stepwise accumulation of mutations is a well-documented process in evolutionary biology (e.g., in the fossil record and microbial evolution studies).

3. "The same mutations must occur in another animal of the opposite sex to reproduce."

Completely wrong understanding of genetics and reproduction.

• Speciation occurs in populations, not isolated individuals.
• If a population is genetically isolated (e.g., by geography or mating preference), mutations spread through interbreeding within that group, not by two freak mutants meeting by chance.

Scientific view:

• Genetic divergence accumulates in subpopulations, leading to reproductive isolation.
• Once reproductive isolation is strong enough, we define the result as a new species.

4. "What if one is in Siberia and the other in Mexico?"

Strawman argument.

Wilber implies that speciation requires a miracle meeting of two identically mutated animals halfway across the world. But this is not how populations evolve.

Scientific view:

• Geographical proximity is essential in natural populations.
• Speciation often begins locally, in small, interbreeding populations.
• There's no need for "matching mutations" across continents.

5. "The odds of all that happening is basically zero."

Wrong again.

Wilber stacks a series of false premises to arrive at an impossible conclusion. But the entire edifice is built on a misunderstanding of how evolution and genetics work.

Scientific view:

• Evolution has been observed in real time (e.g., bacterial evolution, Galápagos finches).
• The mathematics of population genetics confirms that gradual change over time, under selection pressure, can and does lead to new species.
• There are countless transitional forms and genomic evidence supporting this.

Summary Table

Final Thoughts

Wilber's argument resembles creationist tropes, not serious scientific reasoning. It's a case of intellectual sleight of hand, using misrepresentations of biology to make evolution seem absurd.

Ironically, for someone who champions "vision-logic," Wilber here demonstrates neither vision nor logic—only a failure to understand the fundamentals of how evolution by natural selection actually works.

Psychological Analysis

Shouldn't Wilber be ashamed of himself?

From a psychological or rhetorical standpoint, deep shame might feel like a fitting emotional response to the kind of basic scientific misunderstanding Wilber demonstrates in that quote—especially given his reputation as an intellectual synthesizer. When someone sets themselves up as a theoretical giant spanning science, philosophy, and spirituality, yet repeats arguments that echo creationist talking points, it reveals a serious failure of epistemic responsibility.

That said, in the spirit of honest critique rather than personal attack:

Shame might be appropriate if Wilber recognized the error and cared about intellectual integrity.

But more often, figures like him double down, reframing critique as "flatland reductionism" or "lack of spiritual insight."

So rather than shame, what we often see is immunization against criticism—a classic hallmark of insulated belief systems.

In short: Yes, shame would be appropriate—but self-awareness is the missing prerequisite.