Skillful means

Does Ken Wilber understand evolution?

So asks this thread over at the integral Naked forums.

I have a long, detailed post on this that keeps bubbling to the surface of my monkey mind, but for the sake of not failing university, has to be put off. For the moment I'll just say the following.

The Wilber error that is commonly highlighted is his reference in A Brief History of Everything to the half leg, half wing argument, that suggests chance mutation can't explain the jump from a leg to a wing, because a creature with that configuration will die. He also rather forcefully suggests that nobody (since changed to very few theorists) believe this interpretation. This of course, has raised the hackles of many, because the two most prominent biologists of recent years, Richard Dawkins and Steven Jay Gould (RIP) have both argued for this position. Specifically, Dawkins has noted that a spectrum of possibilities exists for the eye and the leg/wing, and thus evolution doesn't have to explain a gap between leg and wing, because a leg/wing works fine (for example, creatures that glide).

It's interesting to note that Wilber doesn't use this example, or any example like it, in SES, considering that A Brief History of Everything is supposed to be the abridged version of SES. Instead, he focuses on the rise of LR quadrant sciences: System theories, holistic sciences, Sheldrake's work, "web of life" theorists etc, the suggestion being that these are necessary as compliments to standard evolutionary theory to explain the increase in depth and complexity of consciousness.

Consider also The Marriage of Sense and Soul in which Wilber makes one mention of Darwin, which is merely a recognition of the fact that Darwin applied evolution to the field of biology. Going back in time a few years, in Up From Eden, Wilber suggests that Darwin's ideas on evolution are true but incomplete, and will thus be replaced with something else in years to come. Again, no mention is made of a specific example.

So what does this suggest? Was Wilber's use of that particular example a botched attempt at skillful means, considering that it only appeared in A Brief History of Everything? It's unfair to call Wilber a creationist, or even a proponent of intelligent design, given that he specifically lambasts creationists for 'stuffing their God into the cracks of natural selection' (or words to that effect). Concerning intelligent design: Wilber reduces Involution to nothing but potentials and not anything pregiven, he also believes in the theory of cosmic (or Kosmic) habits, which suggests not an intelligent designer, but rather a teleological drive. Wilber asserts that natural selection is correct in the biological domain, but cannot explain certain emergents (increasing complexity of matter, increasing depth of consciousness).

So Wilber might have merely tossed the argument in as a poorly researched aside (The Blind Watchmaker, which specifically addresses this question and others like it, was first published in 1986, well before Brief History). Perhaps Wilber has researched the issue extensively, and could argue more accurately against the position that Dawkins takes. However, the ramifications of suggesting that very few theorists believe the Neo-Darwinian view any more, and leaving it at that, are large. If Dawkins was to make an unqualified statement about the interpretation of Nargarjuna that contradicted Wilber's views, I would be inclined to agree with Wilber, given that this is one of his areas of expertise. So it is with Wilber making unqualified statements about evolutionary biology.

Some have suggested in the IN thread that Wilber's misreading/misunderstanding of natural selection doesn't impact on the rest of his theory, and that Integral theory in general is still compatible with the standard, Neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution. I'm inclined to agree with this view, for reasons that I'll explain in a later post which will outline this issue in more detail. However, I will say that the ramifications of Wilber leaving the statement as is, without supporting it further or retracting it, are potentially quite large. Not only has it been actively criticized (Falk, Lane), but it is turning people away from Wilber who might otherwise become interested in Integral theory. As noted in a recent skeptical newsletter (link forthcoming), it's one thing to philosophically argue about whether the universe exists as a matter of random chance or some divine act, it is quite another to argue the specific facts aboute evolution, and to get them wrong. Given that BHOE is the book which is most commonly cited as a good introduction to Wilber's work, this issue needs rectifying.

Update: Apologies if this post reads terribly, I feel like I'm typing in the middle of a chloroform binge.