Brooks wrote: "In my philosophy class the prof asked if man made god or did god make man. The oldest question in philosophy I guess. Well the truth is that man made God. No doubts at all on this one. A more important question is the one in the title. Science would exist if man wasn't here to perceive it. It would of course be unperceived. So hats off to science for making man and allowing us the chance to learn from our perceptions."

Is this a Jesuit gesture of good humor here?

To argue with this post is probably to make the case which Brooks believes but wants to hear in yet another refreshing way. Science is no object at all; Science is a degree of focus. How well did we ask the right questions? How well did we heed and honestly record the answers? How well did we think until we understood? How well did we check our work? How well did we solicit and consider qualified feedback and debate about our findings?

These are never there unless someone makes them.
God is another question. Whether we believe in God or not, God is defined as the entity which is there before we are.
Still I love Robert Ingersoll's statement,"An honest God's the noblest work of man."