If I create a robot to function just the way I design it, eg, to walk from point A to B and then drop a pooh, then that is just what I created it to be - functioning correctly. However, I can't really say the pooh is my creation, because I have no more control over the poohing anymore.
You [say you] have no control over the robot either, yet you acknowledge that it still remains your creation.
Additionally, just as you designed it to walk from point A to point B, you also designed it to pooh. The robot didn't redesign itself in order to pooh.
Again, if you told away my bookcase and rebuild it into a doll house, you have actually taken away a collection of wooden materials that was shaped like a bookcase and reshape it into a doll house. In reality you have taken nothing - there is no bookcase and no doll house - just a collection of wood which we gave a label to identify with.
My original point was more about ownership. Simply put: Just because I "created" the doll house, I still don't own it as I used material you own without your permission to reshape it into a final product of my "creation." This was just another example where even though creation A (me/humans) "created" an offspring creation (doll house/children), creation A does not "own"
their sub-creation.
Another example would be intellectual properties of companies, belonging to companies,
but "created" by individual employees.
In other words, it ought not be so strange to believe, as I do, that even though two humans, within a few minutes, can "create" a baby; the real creator is the entity that designed the whole baby-making process; the entity that did all the heavy lifting.
Yet these reshaping of wood are the functioning ability of the "created man," which like the pooh, the creator have no control. Likewise, I have no more control as to what my offsprings can or cannot do.
Again, you acknowledge that Adam and Eve were of the creator, even though they were free to act outside of the
control of the creator. Thus, "control" is apparently the relevant factor you seem to make it out to be.
If the creator have no control over the actions of his creation, he can't be the master over his creations - it is just working according to the blueprint.
Just because a creator allows freedom, doesn't mean that said creator has relinquished control. In our above examples, the robots can be destroyed or reprogrammed to no longer pooh.
However, this blueprint may be a big mistake which the creator of things have to fix from time to time.
i.e. control