Engineering God in a Petri Dish

Wired News: : "Keats' project asks some serious scientific questions -- and no small number of religious ones: If evolutionary theory is accurate, then God's genetic makeup should most resemble Earth's first life forms. Or, if creationists are right, then God's DNA is more like the life forms he created in his own image. Said another way: Is God more like blue-green algae or the fruit fly?"

I do wish that people who do this kind of thing would consult people with a modicum of theological nous. Though the kind of conceptualising of God implied in this seems to be increasingly common somehow. In this popular conceptuality God is, well, god; that is god is seen to be some kind of super being within this universe. In other words, this universe is the ultimate reality and god has to, therefore, fit into it*. Gone is the concept that God created it all, at the very least god is co-eternal with matter. It's no real surprise: neo-Paganism sees god as less ultimate than 'what is'; Terry Pratchett's novels portray deity in less than infinite and unbegun terms ... it's actually quite a normal view of g/G/od/de. BUt let's note it isn't Christian and if we don't defend God as creator then we are left with absurdities like this 'experiment'. Shades of the early Church.

[* note for traditional grammar pedants: yes this is a split infinitive. But I think that you should note how English actually works. The so-called infinitive in English does not really exist in that way. For example if a conversation-partner were to respond to that starred sentence they might say, "If the universe really were the ultimate reality then you're right about who or what fits into that world picture; and God has to." -note that the 'to' actually fits with the 'has' not with the following verb and that it is not at all okay to say, "...and God has.". Hence my ability to place 'therefore' between 'to' and 'fit']