• 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).

"Darwinism Can't Explain Shit—Deal With It"

How Ken Wilber Uses Creationist Allies to Make Room for Eros

THE LONG DISPUTE OVER EVOLUTION, Part 4

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction

Ken Wilber has long claimed that he fully accepts evolution. Yet again and again, when the topic turns to Darwinism, his language shifts from respectful inclusion to open derision. Darwinism, he tells his readers, “can't explain shit.” It has “holes large enough to drive Hummers through.” It is a “theory in deep trouble.”

What is striking is not merely the polemical tone, but the sources Wilber occasionally invokes to support these claims. Among them are overt or near-creationist figures such as Hugh Ross and Michael Behe—thinkers whose critiques of Darwinian evolution are explicitly motivated by theological commitments Wilber claims to transcend.

This essay examines how Wilber uses such figures rhetorically, not to engage science, but to prime his audience for a spiritualized view of evolution—one in which the alleged failures of Darwinism conveniently clear conceptual space for a “kosmos of Eros.”

1. Wilber's Anti-Darwinian Soundbites

Wilber's criticism of Darwinism is rarely technical. It is emotional, rhetorical, and deliberately provocative. Phrases like:

• “Darwinism can't explain shit—deal with it.”

• “Darwinism has holes in it large enough to drive Hummers through.”

• “Natural selection explains adaptation, not novelty.”

function less as arguments than as signals. They tell the reader: whatever you thought evolution explained, it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Crucially, Wilber almost never specifies which Darwinism he is attacking—historical Darwin, the Modern Synthesis, or contemporary evolutionary biology. The ambiguity is strategic. “Darwinism” becomes a floating signifier for everything Wilber dislikes about scientific naturalism.

2. Citing Creationists Without Owning the Implications

Wilber occasionally points to figures such as:

• Hugh Ross, an old-earth creationist arguing for progressive divine intervention

• Michael Behe, an Intelligent Design advocate famous for “irreducible complexity”

Wilber does not endorse their theology. Instead, he uses them instrumentally: even these people, he suggests, can see that Darwinism is in trouble.

This maneuver does several things at once:

• It imports anti-Darwinian arguments without adopting their theological baggage.

• It creates the impression of a broad front of dissent.

• It allows Wilber to position himself as a “third way” between materialism and creationism.

But this is sleight of hand. Behe and Ross are not neutral critics pointing out technical flaws; they are ideological opponents of naturalistic evolution. Their critiques have been extensively answered within biology, a fact Wilber never seriously addresses.

3. The “Crisis” Narrative as Spiritual Preparation

Wilber's strategy mirrors that of creationists in one crucial respect: manufacturing a sense of crisis.

The steps are familiar:

• Assert that Darwinism is deeply flawed

• Quote dissident or religiously motivated critics

• Ignore mainstream scientific responses

• Declare that something more is needed

At that point, Wilber introduces his preferred solution:

“There is ample room for a kosmos of Eros.”

The crisis narrative is not an end in itself. It is preparatory. It softens the audience, lowers epistemic defenses, and creates a felt need for metaphysical supplementation.

4. From Scientific Gaps to Spiritual License

Wilber's argument depends on a crucial slippage:

• from limits of current explanation

• to principled failure of naturalism

Open problems in evolutionary biology—such as the origin of novelty, consciousness, or complexity—are treated not as research frontiers, but as proof that something non-natural must be at work.

This is where Wilber's rhetoric does its real work. Once Darwinism is portrayed as hopelessly inadequate, Eros appears not as a speculative metaphysical addition, but as a necessary completion.

Yet Eros is never defined with scientific rigor. It has no causal specification, no testable consequences, no constraints. It explains everything precisely because it explains nothing in particular.

5. Avoiding Science While Claiming to Transcend It

Wilber frequently insists that he is not rejecting science, merely “including” it. But inclusion without engagement is not integration.

Notably absent from his discussions are:

• population genetics

• evo-devo research in its actual technical form

• mainstream rebuttals of Intelligent Design

• empirical models of innovation and constraint

Instead, science is engaged rhetorically, at arm's length, as a foil. Darwinism is reduced to a cartoon so that Spirit can appear as the hero.

This is not synthesis; it is theological opportunism.

6. Why This Works on Integral Audiences

Wilber's audience is primed for this move. Many readers:

• feel alienated by reductionist rhetoric

• desire a meaningful, value-laden cosmos

• lack detailed familiarity with evolutionary biology

For such readers, Wilber's confidence, fluency, and selective citation are persuasive. The presence of credentialed dissenters—creationist or otherwise—creates the illusion that science itself is inviting spiritual completion.

But the invitation is illusory.

Conclusion

When Ken Wilber quotes or gestures toward creationist critics of Darwinism, he is not engaging in serious scientific debate. He is engaging in rhetorical staging. Darwinism is declared wounded, its defenses ignored, and its alleged failures magnified—just enough to let Eros enter the scene as savior.

This strategy allows Wilber to claim evolutionary credibility while avoiding the hard work of scientific accountability. Creationists are useful allies, not because they are right, but because they help crack the door. Once open, Spirit walks in.

The result is not an Integral understanding of evolution, but a spiritually motivated dismissal of it—wrapped in the language of transcendence and inclusion.