If we consider prehistoric art from 30,000 B.C. to 10,000 B.C. we can see that there is a difference in the way humans react to the environment. By producing works of art on the walls of caves, hunter/gatherers directed their energy toward an act that did not directly improve fitness. However, it is possible that cave painting indirectly improved fitness by acting upon the emotions or enabling cave dwellers to better interpret their surroundings. These artistic creations were in essence subjective reconstructions of the environment. The vast majority of these reconstructions were wild animals. In many cases cave paintings were created to honour successful hunting. The cave paintings were coloured as well, perhaps in an effort to better depict reality or for aesthetic reasons. Today we continue to produce art in the same vein as our prehistoric ancestors. This is a testament to the fact that our creative abilities continue to enable us to strive toward subjectively interpreting the mystery of reality.

Both science and art can be considered sources of creativity in humans. Many would argue that the major difference between science and art is that science is mainly objective. It is true that the main goal of science is the explicate the workings of nature yet pure objective explanation is impossible. Science exists only with theories and mental constructs. Scientists attempt to explain nature mechanically by creating theories. Scientists construct theories in much the same way as writers create stories and painters create paintings. For instance, M.C. Escher continually repudiated the claim that he had a deep understanding of mathematical principles even though his lithographic works show a grasp of complex geometrical precepts. In fact, his art is used in mathematics texts to help explain complex principles. How could it be that a man of an artistic bent was able to create such profound mathematical metaphors? There must be a connection between the diverse creative abilities that humans manifest. Creativity may well be the bridge that connects the seemingly disparate human capacities for mathematics, science, and art.

Creativity seems apparent in these three subjects because each subject allows for extreme creative potential. Mathematical theories, scientific breakthroughs, and works of art are prime examples of one end of the creativity continuum yet all humans have creative potential and all humans show creativity to various degrees. It was mentioned earlier that creativity includes the ability to assess, interpret, and react to our environment. What must be added is that we not only react to nature but also attempt to harness and control it. Einstein’s theory of relativity is an extreme example of creatively assessing and interpreting nature by employing mental constructs. The strength of Einstein’s creative ability is demonstrated by the fact that the theory of relativity gave way to the atomic bomb, which can be considered the apotheosis of the idea of creative control over nature. It now becomes clear that creativity is based on difference. More specifically, creativity is an act that produces a deviation. For example, there seems to be a correlation between creativity and mental illness, mental illness being a deviation from the norm itself. Research on the subject has shown that a surprisingly large number of creative individuals are prone to mental illness. [4]

Creativity is what differentiates the interplay between humans and nature from the interplay between all other organisms and nature. The evolutionary implication of this is that it is precisely our creative ingenuity that has enabled us to react toward and perhaps even react against nature to an excessive degree.

When observing other species of organisms it appears as if they operate by way of set instinctual patterns. The idea of natural selection is more defined and fitness is a top priority. All species seem to move like clockwork through time adhering to the laws of natural selection. At least this is what appears to be so according to the social clockwork model. Of course, there are deviations within certain populations of organisms, but they are less pronounced than in humans and the majority of these deviations seem to be directed toward better fitness thus being more instinctual. Uniqueness within social interactions of certain species tend to lead to behaviour that can be looked upon as creating a set pattern when viewed within the context of a large time frame. It becomes more difficult to find examples of creative assessment in animal populations and there are no overriding urges to harness nature for the good of the species and against the ecosystem. This is demonstrated through the behaviour patterns of bonobos (Pan paniscus).