@Leadfoot,
1. Again I will ask you, what would a piece of software have to do to convince you that it was being creative. Gary Kasparov (the now retired best human chess player in history) saw creativity in his computer opponent Deep Blue... in fact he erroneously accused the computer of cheating because he felt that only a human being could act in such a creative way.
If you are going to use the word "creativity" to distinguish between humans an computer, you are going to have to provide an objective way to test for creativity. What would a computer have to do to convince you it was creative?
2) You are adding the restriction "requires no programming". I don't think this is a fair restriction.
Your brain requires programming. You are born with neural connections pre-programmed to learn things like walking, social relationships and language. In affect, your brain has been programmed by evolution.
In addition, your brain is also trained. You were taught a specific language (you were born with the circuitry to speak a language in general). You were trained to see, to talk and to move during your infancy (without careful inputs to the world you would have died in infancy).
Yes software requires programming and training. In this way it is no different than the human brain.
3) I have personally used both neural nets and genetic algorithms. You can too if you want, WEKA is a package that I found to be quite useful. There are two restrictions to genetic algorithms, one is compute power, the other is providing a semantic map. We are working on both of these restrictions.