He uses biological "pre-adaptations" and how we're unable to predict them as being evidence of a "ceaseless creativity, with no supernatural creator."He then goes on to say:
I've been thinking about this, and have to say I disagree. To start with the second paragraph, as astounding as God's creativity and beauty in His creation is, the incredible thing is that that same God who holds the universe in His hand loves you and I with a passion we cannot comprehend. A passion that lead to Jesus' death by crucifixion so that we may have true freedom. THAT is stunning and worthy of awe and respect, far more so than a disembodied, faceless and impersonal creativity.
Shall we use the "God" word? We do not have to, yet it is still our most powerful invented symbol. Our sense of God has evolved from Yahweh in the desert some 4500 years ago, a jealous, law-giving warrior God, to the God of love that Jesus taught. How many versions have people worshipped in the past 100,000 years?Yet what is more awesome: to believe that God created everything in six days, or to believe that the biosphere came into being on its own, with no creator, and partially lawlessly? I find the latter proposition so stunning, so worthy of awe and respect, that I am happy to accept this natural creativity in the universe as a reinvention of "God".
In terms of the first paragraph: God is the same God through the ages. Jesus taught that God was a law-keeper and judge, and Moses talked of God as being merciful and loving. Greater emphasis was given to the qualities that Kauffman states, but both aspects have been there throughout the revelation God has given us. Indeed, God's love and Jesus' sacrifice is shown more clearly by an appreciation and an understanding of his Holiness and Justice.
Perspectives: Why humanity needs a God of creativity
NewScientist.com news service