Finkelstein does have a point. The definition of "Creator" as generally accepted not only by Jehovah's Witnesses but many Christians makes cosmological cataclysm more than problematic for their theology. I myself see neither sustainable logic nor theological sense in limiting a deity to the type of "benevolence" that makes the stuff of literalist religion.
On the other hand, such a paradox does not exist for all religions. Judaism, while not entirely absent of an eschatology, has little to no investment in "living today for eternity" as do Christians like Catholics, JWs, and LDS. The present life may be all there is, or so goes this theology, and God may not or does not have to be present in any form in the world. For these God is neither subject to the definition of "benevolence" nor bound to any other standard common to Christianity and Islam's definition of what God is or cannot be.
A universal application of evolution as a champion for the cause of atheism or religion is hard to defend as, so previously explained, the model is limited to the process. Alluding to or excluding God is really adding philosophy and theology to the mix, and the model is the product of neither discipline. Science does not deal in the transcendent and thus cannot be used as a defender of either stand or conviction.