stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

176 STRIPPING THE GURUS
than evolutionists, even though he is claiming to present the
evolutionists’ current view....
What makes Wilber’s remarks on evolution so egregious
is ... that he so maligns and misrepresents the current state
of evolutionary biology, suggesting that he is somehow on top
of what is currently going on in the field.
And Wilber does it by exaggeration, by false statements,
and by rhetoric license.
And how have Wilber and his entourage reacted to such eminently
valid points? As Jack Crittenden—who used to co-edit the
ReVision journal with Wilber—put it (in Integral, 2004):
Wilber has not been believably criticized for misunderstanding
or misrepresenting any of the fields of knowledge that he
includes [in his “Theory of Everything”].
That statement, of course, has been false since at least 1996,
given Lane’s wonderful work and the fact that Wilber’s “Theory of
Everything” most certainly includes basic evolution. Clay Stinson
(1997), likewise, has given quite “believable” criticisms of kw’s
ideas regarding enlightenment, from a skeptical perspective.
Wilber’s treatment of the late David Bohm, too, leaves much to
be desired. For the details of that unprovoked nastiness and gross
misrepresentation, please see this book’s Appendix. To make a long
(and relatively technical) story short: The average high school or
freshman university science student could do better than Wilber
has done, in propagating his arrogant and wholly wrong understandings
of even the most basic ideas in Bohm’s ontological formulation
of quantum theory.
Wilber nastily accuses Bohm of purveying “simplistic and dualistic
notion[s]” (i.e., “simplistic notions”), “bad physics,” “epicycle”-like
ideas in his conceptualization of an “implicate order” underlying
matter, and of not understanding basic metaphysics. In
reality, however, it is only kw’s own comprehension of the relevant
ideas—“of things beyond your Ken”—which is drastically lacking,
not Bohm’s. Wilber thus demonstrably grossly misrepresents
Bohm’s ideas, and then makes himself look good in tearing those
wrong presentations down, in a classic “straw man” attack. All of
that is documented in the aforementioned Appendix.