I used to enjoy reading Ken Wilber's take on reality, a.k.a. Integral Theory. But eventually it dawned on me that Wilber takes a lot of liberties with facts about nature (human and otherwise), so much of his integrating involves untruths.
Case in point: David Christopher Lane's short, easy-to-read pictorial essay, "Frisky Dirt: Why Ken Wilber's New Creationism is Pseudoscience."
Lane persuasively argues that supposedly super-brilliant Ken Wilber actually is clueless about how evolution works. Chance plays a role, but natural selection is anything but random (that's why it's called selection, Ken).
Wilber has come to sound like a creationist with his talk about how the universe is driven by love, Eros. Notions like that are fine so long as they remain in the realm of poetry and mythology, but are utterly ridiculous when contrasted with modern scientific understanding.