I can understand that people like Looy might be upset that the word of God in Genesis, which in part says that God "[made] day and night on the first day even though He didn't make the sun and moon until the fourth day" (Carrol) , is trumped by the theory of evolution. I can understand that people are still upset that the comfort they found believing the earth was the center of the universe and was bathed in a sea of quintessence in an unchanging heaven from which God reigned, vanished with the harsh reality that we live on a small planet revolving around an average, middle-aged star in a huge galaxy that may someday be wiped clean of life by a supernova or some wayward asteroid.
Meanwhile, back on Earth people are indeed driving planes through buildings, strapping bombs to their bodies, and aiming nuclear weapons at each other. Certainly the first thing that comes to my mind to blame this all on is NOT the scientific method (the tool that makes "amoral scientific objectivity" possible), but that's no reason to think it's an outlandish reason. It's quite possible that what we really needed was a genius like Pirsig to explain the insanity of the 20th century to us in an innovative way. It may seem a little far-fetched and a tad reactionary now, but the idea that Objective Scientific Truth-Seeking Is The Root Of All Evil will grow on you with time. Just keep repeating it to yourself hourly, preferably out loud, and keep reading this list.
Being upset that morals and physical science don't mix makes almost as little sense as being upset that oil and water don't mix. You're better off accepting it. Attempts to re-integrate the former are compelling for about five seconds, which is also about how long it takes for oil and water to separate again after a vigorous stir. Just because Aristotle's science and Christian theology are wedded and Galileo's science and Christian theology are not, doesn't imply a "defect" or "contradiction" in Galileo's science or his style of thinking.
On the contrary, the pock-marked blemishes found on the moon by Galileo's telescope showed that the defect was with the Aristotlan/Christian view that says the Moon is a perfect celestial body. It showed that the comfy, touchy-feely Aristotlan/Christian view was based on ignorance and its staying power was due to people's unflinching belief in its infallibility.
In order to integrate Galilean science with a spiritual world-view, you'd have to somehow explain the moral purpose of thousands of lunar crater impacts, not to mention the myriad other physical processes that don't appear moral "under the microscope". Granted, you can brainwash people into believing anything, such as "molecules are morals", but this just dulls and erodes the normal meaning of morality and shoe-horns a reconciliation. Ultimately this isn't any better than the Aristotlan/Christian worldview - a worldview based more on wishful thinking than empiricism.
I don't know about Wilber, but when Pirsig says that scientists don't see morals under a microscope, he's not just stating the standard view, he's bemoaning it. He wishes scientists believed molecules were morals. That's supposed to make science a moral activity and heal the Enlightenment 'failure'. Pirsig says reality is a moral order and there's no doubt about it. The molecules behave morally because they are morals, according to him. Granted, Pirsig makes clear that the morality of atoms is a "distant cousin" of social morality, but some vestiges of social morality have to be present in atoms for the word choice to be compelling. I'm saying even then it's not. Inorganically aware? How do we know? It's certainly not a result of empiricism.
It is argued that soul and spirit are the upper levels of the "oldest idea". The pre-modern inference that soul and spirit are not just manifestations of mind but transcend and include mind, body, and matter is not confirmed by contemporary scientific research, unless you take every crackpot metaphysical theory on the Internet to be science. There is no doubt that people have religious experiences. I've had them. No one seriously denies their empirical existence, but the pre-modern inference drawn from them is not scientific.
Scientific materialism causes neither social values nor subjective realities to be dismissed. However, this is the misconception created by having so little scientific success in these areas. It is the profound failure of psychology to make headway in our understanding of the mind that makes us feel the mind is divorced from reality. And this is really not a problem for the man on the street so much as it is for the semi-classically trained intellectual, who is painfully aware of this failure.
So when David Buchanan says, "Its huge. We're talking about nothing less than the dominant worldview of the modern West", I think he is oblivious to the fact that most people are oblivious to this worldview. An astounding majority of people, particularly in the U.S., believe not just in God, but in guardian angels. That's because there's no concerted effort by the Western worldview, even in academia, to suppress these things. So we have the TV hits "Touched By An Angel" and "The X-Files", and the Star Wars "Force".
Most everyone, presumably brainwashed by scientific materialism, nevertheless accepts social values and subjective experience implicitly, and there's no reason they should not. In particular, there's no scientific reason they should not.
You'd expect folks on this discussion group to buck what you call the modern Western worldview. Indeed, they seem to. They've admitted recently how impressed they are with how astrology, or better yet, the Enneagram, explains human behaviour, or how psi-forces can change past events, or how human memory does not exist in the brain, or anywhere. And Pirsig himself harkens back to a period in history when most cultures believed in (non-ectoplasmic) spirits. I could go on and on, but my point is that this isn't really any different from the non-scientific beliefs of the public at large. And you want to return to some semblance of pre-modern thought. Why bother?
Finally, when Wilber says that subjective truths are collapsed into dirt - literally, he is not just crudely misrepresenting materialism but also his own view - that existence advances through a spectrum of matter, body, and mind. A biologist would be offended if his view were so caricatured, just as Wilber would of his own.