• 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).

Wilberian Evolution

A Case Study in Pseudo-Science

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction

Ken Wilber has long presented himself as a master synthesizer—a philosopher who unites science, psychology, spirituality, and culture into one coherent “integral” framework. But Geoffrey Falk, in his book Norman Einstein: The Dis-Integration of Ken Wilber, shows that Wilber's treatment of evolution does not rise to this noble aim. Instead, it reveals a pattern of exaggeration, distortion, and evasion.

In the chapter “Wilberian Evolution,” Falk provides a close, devastating case study of how Wilber takes one of science's most robust fields and bends it until it breaks.[1] For Falk, this is not just a flaw in detail—it is a symptom of something larger: Wilber's work is a textbook example of pseudo-science in action.

Pseudo-science, as Falk reminds us, emerges when vision outruns evidence, when charisma replaces rigor, and when disagreement is treated as betrayal rather than dialogue. What might have been a bold integration of science and spirituality instead collapses into intellectual self-deception.

Falk's Core Criticisms

1. Certainty Where Science Has None

Wilber repeatedly claims that parapsychology is “100% proven” and that the evidence for psychic phenomena is “beyond dispute.” These statements are sprinkled throughout his work with an air of absolute confidence. Falk seizes on this, showing how reckless and misleading such proclamations are.

Science does not deal in absolutes. It works by probabilities, by provisional conclusions, by openness to revision. To declare something as “100% proven”—especially something as contested as parapsychology—is to abandon the scientific method altogether.

Falk underlines the irony: Wilber postures as a defender of science against narrow materialists, yet he undermines science by turning uncertainty into dogma. That move—treating contested claims as facts—is the hallmark of pseudo-science.

2. Credentials as Cover

Throughout his writings, Wilber reminds readers of his early training in biochemistry and biophysics. This credentialism functions as a shield against criticism, as if to say: I was trained in the lab, therefore my views on evolution must be taken seriously.

Falk demolishes this tactic. Wilber may have studied science, but he left the field decades ago, before the molecular revolution in biology had even unfolded. Quoting credentials does not excuse him from presenting outdated, misleading, or cherry-picked arguments.

For Falk, this is a classic pseudo-scientific maneuver: appeal to authority (in this case, one's own), rather than to the weight of current evidence. It is not the mark of a philosopher integrating science—it is the mark of someone trading on reputation rather than rigor.

3. Cherry-Picking and Double Standards

One of Falk's sharpest points is that Wilber embraces fringe authorities while scorning mainstream ones. For example:

• Wilber approvingly cites Michael Behe, the Intelligent Design theorist whose claims have been shredded in courtrooms and by peer review alike.
• He denounces Richard Dawkins—a leading evolutionary biologist—as a “religious preacher” of materialism.

This selective treatment reveals Wilber's method: accept what fits his worldview, dismiss what does not. Such cherry-picking is the opposite of scientific integration. It is confirmation bias elevated to philosophy.

Falk shows that this double standard is not incidental—it is structural. Wilber's project depends on sidelining mainstream voices in order to make room for his preferred mystical narrative of evolution as “Spirit-in-action.” Without the cherry-picking, the system collapses.

4. Deafness to Criticism

Perhaps most damning, Falk documents Wilber's refusal to engage serious criticism. When his students or colleagues raise doubts about his evolutionary claims, Wilber often responds not with reasoned rebuttal but with mockery, ridicule, or outright dismissal.

This defensiveness, Falk argues, is itself a marker of pseudo-science. In genuine science, critique is fuel; in pseudo-science, critique is threat. Wilber's integral community has too often mirrored this behavior—circling the wagons, praising Wilber's brilliance, and brushing off critics as “flatland reductionists.”

The result is an intellectual echo chamber. As Falk dryly observes, Wilber has insulated himself from the very conversations that could have sharpened his ideas. What remains is not integration but isolation.

5. A House Built on Sand

All of this culminates in what Falk describes as a “house built on sand.” Wilber's spiritual philosophy rests on two weak pillars:

• A distorted reading of evolution—presented as inadequate without divine intervention.
• An uncritical embrace of parapsychology—treated as established science.

When those pillars are removed, the edifice crumbles. What remains looks less like a profound integration of knowledge and more like a charismatic performance dressed in scientific language.

For Falk, this is the essence of pseudo-science: a system that imitates the form of science while rejecting its substance.

Why It Matters

Falk's critique matters because it exposes the danger of Wilber's approach. Integral Theory presents itself as a “theory of everything,” a reliable map of reality that can guide philosophy, psychology, politics, and spirituality. But if the map is based on distortions of science, it becomes dangerous—not just mistaken, but misleading.

The integral community's silence around Falk's critique is also telling. By ignoring it, they signal that loyalty to Wilber matters more than truth. Falk shows how easily an intellectual movement can slide from inquiry into belief, from philosophy into ideology.

The lesson extends beyond Wilber: any thinker who shields themselves from criticism, proclaims certainty where none exists, and cherry-picks evidence is walking the path of pseudo-science.

What Wilber Should Have Done

Falk's analysis points to a better way forward, had Wilber chosen it. A philosopher of integration could:

• Treat evolution metaphorically—as a poetic expression of spiritual growth—without distorting biology.
• Acknowledge limits—admitting where science is silent instead of filling the gap with mysticism.
• Engage critics constructively—seeing dissent as dialogue rather than betrayal.
• Separate fact from interpretation—distinguishing science from spiritual metaphor.
• Model humility—recognizing that no single thinker can integrate everything without error.

Had Wilber embraced this path, his project might have been respected as visionary philosophy. Instead, it veered into the realm of pseudo-science—grandiose in scope, but fragile in foundation.

Conclusion: Lessons from Falk

Geoffrey Falk's chapter “Wilberian Evolution” is more than a critique of one thinker. It is a case study in how pseudo-science emerges when vision is unmoored from evidence. Wilber's absolutism about parapsychology, his appeals to outdated credentials, his cherry-picking of authorities, and his hostility to criticism—these are not quirks. They are warning signs.

Integral Theory could have been a bold philosophical system that enriched spiritual discourse while respecting science. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. Wilber did not integrate science; he appropriated it, reshaped it to fit his metaphysics, and dismissed those who objected.

Falk's verdict is unsparing, but necessary: Ken Wilber's treatment of evolution is not integration. It is pseudo-science.

For readers, the lesson is clear. Whenever a system:

• Claims certainty where there is none,
• Prefers fringe voices over mainstream consensus,
• Uses credentials or charisma as shields,
• Treats criticism as hostility,

…it has crossed the line from science into pseudo-science.

Ken Wilber's story is not just about one thinker. It is about the perennial temptation to confuse vision with truth. Falk's critique reminds us that real integration requires humility, openness, and rigor. Without those, even the grandest systems collapse.

NOTES

[1] Geoffrey D. Falk, Wilberian Evolution, Chapter 2 of "Norman Einstein: The Dis-Integration of Ken Wilber", Million Monkeys Press, 2009.