Over the years I have watched – somewhat bemused, I must admit – the ongoing debate between the proponents of the theory of evolution and those who hold that everything that exists today is the instantaneous product of an act of creation by something or another, typically a super natural being of sorts (I have no idea what that means – and those that believe this don’t know what that means either, although they would say that they do – but as they are unable to demonstrate in any form shape or fashion what it is that they are talking about, it comes down to a leap of faith in the end, and that seems to be the full extent of it. )

This debate is really about the distinction between theory and fantasy – between a descriptive account attempting to relate certain aspects of our observations of the physical world in some coherent and logical fashion, and a fantastic tale pulled out of a hat, a superstition gone rampant, folklore of the most primitive kind, and at best a naive belief in the order of a bedtime story for those who really don’t want to think about such things …

The premise of evolution is that – as a process – it can be applied consistently to give an account of a range of observations related to such things as the fossil record and the development of species. It describes the development of organic life over time, and draws conclusion about the process that underlies it in a compelling manner. It follows observation, not faith, and as such it is – as a theory – subject to continuous revision and refinement, and has stood up well over time. It is plausible account of some intrinsic biological process that brought us here as a distinct species, regardless of the question as to why we are here. Those are different issues. Evolution does not explain itself – why it is present in the first place – what motivates it – or what its aims are. But just because it cannot account for itself in these terms does not invalidate its application to the observable world – it simply is, like the world is – and everything in it. As such it does not remove the mystery of the world – that is not the function of the theory of evolution, and it can no more account for that aspect of existence than the childish claims of creationism.

If creationism can be accused of anything – other than making up stories – it is intellectual dishonesty. Someone might well be a creationist while basing their entire lives on the principles of scientific methodology – that is to say, everything they do or say is a function of astute observation and sound reasoning , of reaching conclusions based on cause and effect, and the subsequent predictability of events. This is how they plan their  daily routines, their economic decision, their careers, their lives .

In that context, creationists  are thoughtful,  rational people. Yet, they abandon all of that when it comes to considering the larger context for this and accept some naive and simplistic account in the order of a  fairy-tale that is entirely without merit..

This as opposed to examining the process that brought us here with the same intellectual tools that they apply to their daily lives.  To adopt the latter approach makes one look at the world with eyes wide open in absolute wonder and – to my mind – enhancing the miracle of the universe infinitely more than reducing it to some magical act by mystical beings.

Now my theory is that God did not create man – and that in fact the opposite is true: man created God. As a result  – God – in a metaphorical sense, would indeed  have had belly button, since he sprang from the fertile mind of mankind – and today for those who still believe in him  the umbilical cord is still attached and keeping the idea of God alive a little bit longer.

And so man created God, together with all the other creatures that can be said to populate the metaphysical universe. He created God during the first dawn of reflective thought, when his mind became a mirror and he saw the world and himself in it; and when he did not know how or why he came about, or what his purpose in life was. And so he invented the idea of God – a parental creator and authority –  in response to the questions he could not find an answer for – like a soother in the mouth of babes – until such time he would come of age and has the courage to face his destiny on his own, and to accept full responsibility for it.

And this will happen, surely, when he is able to step back from his own ignorance with the realization that he isn’t the creature caught in the mirror,  but the actual source of it – that he is his own prime mover, and the embodiment of the force of life itself. That is: should we ever have the courage to open our eyes to consider and accept this.

 … It suggests that great discovery is the realization of something obvious; a presence staring us in the face, waiting until we open our eyes. (Michael Polanyi, in Science, Faith and Society)