I've been curious for some time about the opinion of the ecological community on the work of Ken Wilber. In his books "Sex, Ecology and Sprituality" and "Brief History of Everything", and various websites and blogs, he comments on "neo-Darwinian evolution". He is reported (http://www.integralworld.net/visser32.html) to have written:
"Folks, give me a break on this one. I have a Master's degree in biochemistry, and a Ph.D. minus thesis in biochemistry and biophysics, with specialization in the mechanism of the visual process. I did my thesis on the photoisomerization of rhodopsin in bovine rod outer segments. I know evolutionary theory inside out, including the works of Dawkins et al. The material of mine that is being quoted is extremely popularized and simplified material for a lay audience. Publicly, virtually all scientists subscribe to neo-Darwinian theory. Privately, real scientists -- that is, those of us with graduate degrees in science who have professionally practiced it -- don't believe hardly any of its crucial tenets. Instead of a religious preacher like Dawkins, start with something like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. And then guess what? Neo-Darwinian theory can’t explain ----. Deal with it." So, I've wondered, what do "real scientists" think? And does anyone have a comment of the recent book "Integral Ecology", expounding Wiber's views on the subject? I'm certainly not trying to start an arguement on evolution, but rather wondering if anyone has opinions on Wilber's assertions. I've not seen this subject (Wilber) addressed by "real" ecologists. Thanks!
