In article @bignews1.bellsouth.net>, jonathan said...

No, it is extraordinarily foolish to do so.

First, Kaffmann's god will be confused with
longstanding notions of God, such as he who was his
own son/father and who demanded a blood sacrifice for
sins. This god has nothing to do with Kauffmann's
notions of emergence.

Second, it is likely that that Kauffman's equivocation
is deliberate. By using the word "God" to describe
something wholly unconnected to traditional notions of
the term, he can thereby pluck dollars from the
pockets of people who believe in that traditional God
and who seek evidence that science supports a belief
in God.