Well, maybe I’m too anal about the terminology, but it can get quite confusing pretty fast when a spiritual seeker encounters terms like “ego-consciousness” or “expanded consciousness” and then is e.g. confronted with a concept that consciousness is unchanging and the true nature of reality. I don’t think there is a need to explain the difference between awareness and consciousness in all articles that deal with them (sans those that specifically elaborate on the difference), but to avoid the said confusion, I’m firmly convinced that the use of proper terminology is essential.

As for the rest — once I recreated and expanded on a certain image depicting relationship between God and Universe:

• Theism: God created Universe, resides outside of it, but interacts with it.
• Deism: The same as theism, only God does not intervene.
• Pantheism/Pandeism: God created and now is the inner essence of the whole Universe. Depending on the particular view, God may or may not intervene in affairs of the Universe.
• Atheism: There is no God.
• Panentheism: God created the Universe within him/her/itself, and pervades it as its inner essence. God and Universe interact with each other.
• ???: Universe is an inseparable appearance (or image) of God who is none other than personal consciousness (“I am”) that is fundamentally a perfect (i.e. non-dimensional) point located within itself (which is quite literally nowhere). God not only interacts with Universe but upholds (or recreates) it each “now”. And strictly speaking, God and Universe are merely concepts within reality, i.e. all-that-is (existence).

So yes, I’m not advocating for Pantheism as it is known, but for some kind of panpsychic pantheistic panentheism where God is personal, if something like that even makes sense. Anyway, it explains why, depending on a particular viewpoint, reality can be perceived in a plethora of (oftentimes conflicting) ways (therefore I’m also a vocal proponent of shedding all viewpoints in order to arrive at “raw reality” as it is).

The actual process of creation (causal stream) then goes something like this:

singularity -> initial condition -> state A -> … -> current state

The mechanics (or “how”) is most probably neo-Darwinian evolution, the purpose (or “why”) is then inferable from the current state. And both, the “how” as well as “why”, originate in “initial condition” which due to causal nature of the whole process inevitably leads to “current state” (I won’t go into free will for now, because it’s a force of a different degree). Thus, we can say that because Universe can be aware of itself (via human), neo-Darwinian evolution had to follow this purpose which must have been inherent in the “initial condition”. And due to the nature of neo-Darwinian evolution, the causal stream arrived at that purpose by a best way possible, i.e. it made Universe, which is no other than God, aware of itself in the most fitting manner (the environment and its inhabitants are perfect match for each other and their inherent purpose).

Thus, everything supernatural is completely natural — it, too, follows certain (causal) rules and it exists within the same reality, etc.

All in all, as I found out, modern science (even mainstream and not necessarily the fringe variety, mind you) does not contradict God in any way whatsoever. Quite to the contrary — it clears up the incorrect spiritual or religious assumptions in the same manner as Buddha tried to clear up misunderstandings that crept into and corrupted Hinduism. And that’s basically the same thing what Jesus has done with Judaism. Sadly, during the millennia, both Buddhism as well as Christianity met with the same fate of corruption. And the rest is history, as they say.