Darwinitis

David Christopher Lane is the cult-buster who went after Eckankar and the MSIA some decades ago. He is a former follower of the Radhasoami tradition within Hinduism. Today, Lane sounds like a sceptic-atheist-materialist, although he still makes occasional nods to mystical spirituality. "Cosmic Creationism" contains a number of polemics against Ken Wilber and his followers on the question of evolution. I think all of the material, in one form or another, is already available free on the web.

I agree that Wilber's take on evolution is curious for a supposedly evolutionary thinker. It *does* sound quasi- or crypto-creationist. Wilber seems to have a saltationist view of evolution. Since that's hard to explain in purely materialist terms, Wilber postulates a supra-physical, teleological force at work in the Kosmos, a force he calls Eros or Love. Why Eros can't evolve a bird gradually from a reptile isn't clear to the present reviewer! Would that be tough love?

Lane has little problem showing that Wilber's view of evolution is fringey, that even his description of the current state of research is distorted, and that alternative explanations to "Eros" exist. Amen. My problem with Mr Lane is that he presupposes materialism in his polemics against Wilber, and rather crudely at that ("everyone can see the physical world, but we can't all see God"). No, but we can intuit thoughts, meaning, values (or abstract numbers!), none of which are physical, so why assume materialism? We can also, ahem, intuit mystical states...

While evolution is true (in the sense that a primordial organism really did became Kenneth E. Wilber after some quality evo-devo and a string of transitional forms), there is a philosophical case for at least "soft" teleology and a spiritual-supernatural dimension of our (admittedly confusing) holonic multiverse. Yes, David, dogs do have Buddha-nature. And you, my friend, are suffering from Darwinitis! :-D