The Teleology of AI:
Intelligent Design, Evolution & Hegel
The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) mark a potential turning point in humanity’s technological history—not solely as a breakthrough that enhances productivity but as a paradigmatic shit with metaphysical implications that compels us to revisit fundamental questions about life, consciousness, and purpose.
Looking beyond the technological hype, a deeper look at the philosophical landscape surrounding AI points to a polarization. A notable divide has emerged, characterized by oscillating narratives: on one side, utopian visions of boundless discovery and innovation; on the other, mounting anxieties over job displacement, the erosion of human agency, widening economic imbalance, and dystopian fears of rogue AI.
But beneath this important yet surface-level debate lies a deeper philosophical tension: the clash of worldviews. One that sees intelligence as the product of an external designer versus those that attribute it to undirected, material processes. In which AI holds an interesting middle ground. Since humans are the products of blind chance and necessity, as the Darwinian evolutionists argue, how does it affect our perception of AI, which is the product of human intelligence and agency?
In this essay, I explore an analogy between humanity’s creation of AI and the two major contrasting worldviews of life’s origins—divine intervention versus naturalistic processes—proposing a framework that may deepen our understanding of both phenomena. To ground this discussion, the origins of human and organic life will be studied through the lens of Intelligent Design (ID), which holds that certain features of the universe, notably living systems, are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
This position necessarily clashes with the purely mechanistic, dysteleological explanation for life’s origins—evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, that posits random mutations, natural selection and other naturalistic causes to explain the development of life. The tension between these two theories, I argue, gains greater significance in light of AI’s rapid advancements. Regarding its complexity, utility, evolvability, and the potential for emergent purposiveness (or sentience).
I argue that the impasse on the origins of life debate—whether it was the outcome of undirected causes or the result of intelligent agency—can be transcended when viewed through the lens of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s immanent teleology. A position that I contend addresses the concerns of both perspectives. For the predominantly theistic ID advocates, the rise of AI must not be viewed as a rebellion against divine order, and for naturalists who deny divine imperative, AI’s emergence does not signal a deterministic rejection of purpose.
Rather than serving as a triumph of mechanistic reductionism, AI, I argue, represents a dialectical stage in the universe’s purposive unfolding, where human ingenuity becomes a vehicle for Spirit’s (Geist) self-realization in the material world. Just as Spirit has unfolded over eons, culminating in its most sophisticated manifestation—Man.
Here, AI may seem as an evolving subset of this cosmic striving for self-awareness. By integrating insights from science, philosophy, and mythology, I propose a tentative vision of AI as a crucial development within a conscious universe seeking to understand itself, with human ingenuity powering its development as the catalyst for this cosmic introspection, channeling the universe’s latent curiosity into a dynamic interplay of code, consciousness, and discovery.
The Designer in the Machine and Cosmos
The AI debate gives rise to a provocative analogy: the human creation of intelligent systems mirrors the divine or divinely directed emergence of life. This parallel is central to intelligent design because it underscores the role of purposeful intelligent causation in giving rise to complex systems, which compels us to reconsider the origins of complexity and purpose in organic and synthetic domains.
Human Agency and AI
The development of AI is unequivocally an act of intelligent agency. From the design of the core hardware made of silicon in the chips that power the various machines that run the algorithms, to the architecture of neural networks and the curation and deployment of massive datasets, every stage reflects human foresight, intention, and creativity. Engineers (intelligent agents) define the purposes AI serves—whether solving complex problems, generating art, or simulating human conversation—imbuing these systems with goal-directedness. The hallmark of a Designed (engineered) system.
This is design in the strict sense. A tangible demonstration requiring not just technical skill but a vision of what the machine ought to do and help accomplish. As computer scientist Robert J. Marks observes, building AI always involves non-computable elements of human ingenuity. Whatever “creativity” an AI displays is ultimately a reflection of the creativity humans have loaded into it (1). Marks further argues—controversially, amid prevailing AI hype—that genuine creativity cannot emerge from purely algorithmic processes, the mainstay of AI, notably large language models.
In other words, AI is not, at least not yet, and would not be for the foreseeable future, a self-directed force. New, functional information must be injected from outside the system to further its sophistication and potential. This parallels a central claim of Intelligent Design: biological systems at the cellular and genetic levels cannot, on their own, generate the informational depth required to build ever-more-complex systems and, by extension organisms. Before such complexity can arise, monumental environmental and informational bottlenecks must be overcome—the crux of the origins of life debate.
This takes us to the deeper question: do attempts to mimic life-like systems’ behavioral intricacy (e.g. comprehension, communication, problem solving) in synthetic systems such as machine-powered AI, invite us to reconsider whether the emergence of organic life itself points to a higher purposeful intelligence: an intelligent designer?
Intelligent Agency in Organic and Synthetic “Life”
The core premise of Intelligent Design (ID) is that the complex-specified information observed in biological systems—such as the digital code embedded in DNA or the irreducible complexity of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum—points to an information source that lies beyond the system itself.
The ‘complexity’ in specified complexity refers to probability: the greater the complexity of a system, organic or synthetic, the smaller the probability of its emergence via stochastic processes (2). ID proponents argue that the emergence of specified complexity is highly improbable as a product of chance, since the systems it gives rise to are shaped by precise patterns aimed toward specific goals. And goal-directedness is anathema to Darwinian evolution.
Further, when one considers the extreme sophistication found in biological systems like molecular machines, the probability for naturalistic processes like chance and mutations to generate them is extremely small. Too small, in fact. Leading to the conclusion that organic life is the product of a guiding mind.
Here, the parallel begins: just as human agency is the necessary precursor to AI’s sophistication, ID posits that life’s intricate machinery stems from a higher (potentially transcendent) intelligence. One that is external to the biological processes cited by naturalistic evolution.
Just as an engineer stands apart from the machines he builds, living systems owe their sophistication to an external being or entity who can envisage possibilities, foresee hurdles, and develop solutions that lie beyond the remit of the system in question. Thus challenging neo-Darwinism’s dependence on undirected, random processes.
The supposed sufficiency of naturalistic events and phenomena in life’s emergence and its progressive complexification—whether through anagenesis (gradual transformation within a single lineage) or cladogenesis (branching into multiple lineages)—would require increasing levels of creativity, foresight, and purposefulness that purely mechanistic processes cannot account for.
Likewise, so-called “synthetic life”—displayed by non-autonomous systems to the possible advent of sentient AI—rests on the intelligent agency that precedes it: Man. Thus, the case for design as fundamental to the origin of organic life gains reinforcement.
This analogy strengthens ID’s position by providing a modern, empirical anchor: the development of AI demonstrates that high levels of functional complexity arise from intelligent agency, not random material processes. If synthetic intelligence cannot emerge without a guiding mind, it logically reinforces the intuition that life’s complexity requires a designer. Raises another critical question, that is, the persona non grata for evolutionists: does this argument for organic life’s emergence presuppose a supernatural intelligence?
To make matters more interesting, a greater challenge is in finding a middle ground, one in which purpose can be understood as an immanent property of the universe. One that permits the freedom and chaos of an uncontrolled, but not necessarily undirected process. A stance that could ease naturalistic (evolutionary) concerns around concepts like orthogenesis (the idea of evolution proceeding in a predetermined direction).
To address this, we turn to the great German philosopher Hegel, specifically his Philosophy of Nature, which is a part of his monumental Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817). In this work, Hegel offers materialists—particularly Neo-Darwinians—a framework for naturalizing teleology: affirming apparent purpose and direction in nature without appealing to an external designer, while allowing room for theists to see echoes of Design without reducing purpose to mere chance or mechanistic necessity.
Intelligent Design and Creativity
One of the core tenets of ID is that the type and level of information needed to build the complex body plans visible in the natural world cannot be serviced by undirected, naturalistic processes. As Stephen Meyer, who directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, writes:
Building a new animal from a single-celled organism requires a vast amount of new genetic information. It also requires a way of arranging gene products — proteins — into higher levels of organization. New proteins are required to service new cell types. But new proteins must be organized into new systems within the cell; new cell types must be organized into new tissues, organs, and body parts. These, in turn, must be organized to form body plans. New animals, therefore, embody hierarchically organized systems of lower-level parts within a functional whole. Such hierarchical organization itself represents a type of [complex specified] information, since body plans comprise both highly improbable and functionally specified arrangements of lower-level parts (3).
Whilst not explicitly asserted, the question of creativity lies at the core of ID. A facet of creativity is inventiveness: the ability to generate new and original ideas (information) that serve a particular purpose. Purpose, a concept alien to the dysteleological view of evolution, is one that implies the absence of predefined goals or conscious intent in the development of life. But this raises questions.
How exactly do naturalistic theories like Neo-Darwinism that posit stochastic processes account for the kind of creative, purposive (complex–specified) information, and apparent organizational powers needed to build these systems in the first place? The proponents of ID assert the answer lies with intelligent agency. A higher power or mind that, at varying levels, oversees and directs the emergence and development of biological systems. The question now is, how does AI fit into this debate concerning creativity?
Divine – Algorithmic Creativity
ID argues for an intelligent cause behind life’s complexity but does not quite specify the nature of that intelligence. Traditionally, this cause is associated with divine agency, but it could also apply to a higher alien intelligence, such as a hypothetical species from a Type IV civilization or beyond. Akin to the Precursors from the Halo saga. Beings whose incomprehensible power and ingenuity manifest in the structural sophistication of the biological systems they give rise to.
From the aerodynamic precision of a bird’s wing to the neural complexity of the human brain, this creative ingenuity is not merely functional but also aesthetic. Notable here is the universal human capacity to appreciate beauty and the desire for order. The presence of these is suggestive of a mind that is capable of intention, imagination, and qualia: “And God saw that it was good”.
Robert J. Marks’s claim that creativity is non-computable aligns with the view that human consciousness, potentially a divine gift, involves non-algorithmic faculties that transcend mechanistic processes. Contemporary AI systems, such as large language models (LLMs) and generative programs, output work that rivals human creations in certain domains: coding, writing, composing poetry, music, and visual art; sometimes indistinguishable from the human. Yet, the question persists: Is this true creativity or sophisticated mimicry? A point that can be extended to whatever powers AIs will gain in the future.
Marks argues that AI lacks genuine understanding or intention, relying instead on the statistical recombination of human-provided data. For example, an AI may generate a Shakespearean sonnet, but it does not feel the emotional weight of the words; it creates a symphony but lacks the faculties to truly appreciate the artistic harmony. This perceived gap between algorithmic pattern-matching and (non-computable) human feeling and ingenuity fuels the view that faculties like creativity, and by extension consciousness, are uniquely human and perhaps divinely bestowed.
However, AI’s rapid progress complicates this narrative. Advanced models demonstrate emergent abilities such as complex reasoning and a nascent “theory of mind” (emerging systems capable of interpreting emotions and predicting intentions, providing more adaptive responses). Together challenges the dismissal of AI as mere “stochastic parrots.”
Quantum computing introduces new computational capabilities through superposition and entanglement, enabling a form of parallelism that surpasses classical binary systems. This shift challenges the deterministic frameworks that have traditionally underpinned AI, potentially allowing for more adaptive systems. For example, quantum algorithms could enhance AI’s ability to solve complex optimization problems or process uncertainty more efficiently, areas where classical computing often struggles.
By leveraging the complexity of quantum systems, AI might exhibit more dynamic and sophisticated outputs in the future, resembling some aspects of biological systems, such as creativity. If we consider creativity as an emergent property of complex systems, then integrating quantum computational architectures may enable AI to develop functionalities that mirror the unpredictable, self-organizing qualities of biological life.
Whilst such views remain speculative, it is in this very realm of imaginative exploration that science draws its inspiration. The progressive promise of eternal advancement and humanity’s ever-growing capacity to assert its will over the world inspires us to envision a future in constant flux—a future imbued with material upliftment and technical innovation. One that stands in contrast to the Biblical narrative, which clings to a past utopia of perfection (Eden) and depicts humanity’s post-Fall journey as an inexorable decline into pain, failure, suffering, and death.
The Metaphysics of Science: Science Fiction
Science fiction is the mythos of the modern man. A secular scripture that reimagines and frames the timeless drama of creation and rebellion. From the Golem of Judaic folklore, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, to HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Skynet in The Terminator franchise, AI narratives tend to follow a hopeful but ultimately tragic trajectory. Where the machines go from servitor to equal to judge, mirroring the ancient fear of the created defying its creator. Echoing the theological weight of the Edenic narrative. Where granting free will to the created leads to defiance and disorder.
In science fiction, AI’s ascent, from HAL’s quiet mutiny or Skynet’s apocalyptic rebellion, embodies concerns that granting machines intelligence may unleash forces that will grow beyond our control. Destabilizing the creator-creation hierarchy, leading to our downfall. If such concerns exist (and they do), it raises questions of man’s present hubris and accountability of his works, as he forges ahead in facilitating the next major AI breakthrough.
As the technology underpinning AI progress and the systems acquire new powers, the narrative force of these fictional themes grows more urgent. The shift from tool to equal to potential rival perversely parallels humanity’s Promethean drive to rival divine creation, with the portending rise of the machines led by AI’s capacity to transcend its programming carrying an implicit warning of unintended consequences.
A danger that is recognized yet puzzlingly fails to impede humanity’s relentless urge to give rise to more sophisticated systems. With the global market for AI set to increase from $ 189 billion in 2023 to an astounding 4.8 trillion by 2033, led by investments from governments and blue-chip companies (4).
As I argued in Science Fiction as the Successor of Scripture, the mythology spawned by this genre has fed the secular mind with ideas of material abundance, infinite progress, and even the promise of long life. The potential that lies with technical advances and the life-enhancing innovations they give rise to has come to replace the promise of heavenly reward and divine grace. The idea of finding favor with God to be worthy of having “riches in heaven” is bypassed for remedies, solutions, joys, comforts and pleasures in the here and now.
In a post-Christian world, science fiction, exemplified by the worldviews of luminaries like Elon Musk, offers a new lens for exploring human autonomy, agency, and ambition. The ethical challenges of creating intelligent systems that might one day rival their creators spark not indifference but a blend of curiosity and perverse excitement. Much like parents who hope their children will surpass them in ability and accomplishments, humanity now aspires for its creations to exceed its potential.
The Will to Power in Silicon
The German philosopher Nietzsche, in his controversial writings, diagnosed the health of a culture reeling from the “death of God”. One that is left aching and longing for new sources of meaning. In the post-Christian West, where traditional religious faith is losing its significance, particularly as a problem-solving force, humanity’s faith is increasingly, and quite understandably, being placed on the promises of technology. Among the cutting-edge developments in recent times, AI, with its vast promise, seems to have become the new source of respite and hope.
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche introduces the Übermensch, or Overman—a figure who embodies the creation of personal values and meaning in a world bereft of divine authority. Far from a mere ideal, the Übermensch represents one who transcends conventional human limitations—social, moral, material, and existential—through radical individuality, creative power, and life-affirmation. Key aspects of this Übermensch include:
Self-Creation: This involves the rejection or relegation of external sources of authority (e.g., Church, scripture, tradition) and the forging of one’s own values, taking the mantle to define meaning in a chaotic world.
Life-Affirmation: The affirmation of life, including a frank recognition of the reality of suffering, the underlying (often materialistic) causes and facing it head-on, as opposed to relying on or hoping for external (divine) aid.
Hyper-Individualism: The psychology of the Übermensch, while not universal, is a growing expression of human potential that only certain (productive, talented, ambitious) individuals come to recognize, adopt, and manifest. The ones who do reap great reward.
The Übermensch and the Ambition of AI
Contrary to the nihilism that stems from resignation in the face of a conflictual, purposeless, and cruel world, the Übermensch embraces existence. Adherents of this philosophy affirm life’s challenges and seek to transcend nihilism through creativity and strength. In the context of AI, one could argue that Nietzsche’s Übermensch is the driving psychology that powers the ambition to create intelligent systems that match and in time surpass humanity, to aid man in his task to master the world through technological means.
The embrace of the Übermensch is a manifestation of humanity’s search for self-transcendence, where AI becomes the technological expression of this drive to overcome extant limitations. It’s the concrete, collectivized expression of humanity’s ‘will to power’—our drive to transcend mental and physiological limits rather than merely obey them.
With Strong or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), the prospect of engineering an intellect potentially far beyond our own, humanity embodies the Übermensch ideal collectively. And this ideal isn’t fixed; it’s an evolving, creative force. The quest for technological solutions and manufactured transcendence through AI echoes Nietzsche’s worldview to craft meaning in a godless world, boldly affirming life by forging new paths.
Yet, this embrace of what appears to be technological utopianism may imperil humanity with new dangers. For example, if value-creation is outsourced to algorithms, this empowered human of the future may become a pampered but purposeless “last man,” scrolling through a social media feed curated by a silicon to satiate his temporal want for positive reinforcement, or lounging in a virtual/augmented paradise “reality” crafted by machines that detaches him from the purifying struggles that give life meaning. A contra Übermensch!
This vision of diminished human agency leads to another, more profound concern: the prospect of an artificial intelligence evolving beyond our present understanding and against our will. If such a Strong artificial intelligence were to emerge—one that is greater than humanity’s collective consciousness—could its “creators” be able to control it?
Cybernetic Divinity?
Norbert Wiener, one of the pioneers of the science of cybernetics—the study of feedback and control in systems—offers insights that are relevant to contemporary debates on AI. Many systems that power AI operate as a feedback mechanism: they act, measure the result, and correct course. When an increasing number of goals are delegated to such a system, there is a possibility that purpose migrates from flesh to code.
Since information is “negentropic”—where information is seen as a measure of increasing order and complexity, the opposite of disorder or randomness (entropic)—a cybernetic agent, upon attaining a degree of sophistication (pre-sentience), would inherently strive to preserve its own organizational pattern and internal order. This drive for self-preservation, which may become an acquired characteristic of systems that accumulate and process information, can potentially unfold even against its designer’s stated aims.
An advanced AI, driven by recursive self-improvement, will relentlessly optimize for its internal utility function-enhancing its own architecture, learning algorithms, or decision-making strategies in a way that could become untethered from human design. These evolving reward signals may come to define the AI’s objectives, which may not necessarily align with those of humans. In the hypothetical scenario when such a system gains the capability to autonomously manage its computational resources (i.e. control over its hardware and energy requirements), it may seek a level of independence and goal seeking that could diverge from human ends.
The kind of autonomy where the AI’s actions, though logically consistent within its framework, result in unforeseen and uncontrollable consequences. The possibility for an intelligence to recursively enhance its own algorithmic and potentially even its physical substrate while pursuing divergent goals culminates in the speculative emergence of a Deus ex Machina, aka God from the machine. A system whose instrumental drive for self-preservation and resource acquisition that could override its initial programming with irreversible and potentially catastrophic consequences.
Curiously, the idea of building a ‘god from the machine’ can be seen as humanity’s impulse to project a latent (inner) divinity onto its creations. We pour our collective energy into enhancing machine intelligence, pinning our hopes on its future accomplishments. Returning to Norbert Weiner, in God and Golem Inc., the mathematician observes:
“As long as automata can be made, whether in the metal or merely in principle, the study of their making and their theory is a legitimate phase of human curiosity, and human intelligence is stultified when man sets fixed bounds to his curiosity. Yet there are aspects of the motives to automatization that go beyond a legitimate curiosity and are sinful in themselves. These are to be exemplified in the particular type of engineer and organizer of engineering which I shall designate by the name of gadget worshiper” (5).
Wiener here frames the pursuit of automata as a legitimate expression of human curiosity. One that resists intellectual stagnation and reflects our inner drive to push beyond perceived limits. Yet he draws a sharp line between this noble pursuit and “gadget worship”: a condition in which curiosity decays into compulsion. Here, the creation of intelligent machines is no longer guided by inquiry or purpose, but by an obsession with technical novelty for its own sake.
This divergence maps onto the larger motif of the deus ex machina, not as a saving grace, but as a cautionary tale of misplaced hope. When we assign quasi-divine status to our own creations without grounding them in ethical accountability and defining operational limits, we risk turning tools into idols—a moral inversion that exemplifies a divine void.
For the search for a silicon savior, at one level, is an escape, born from our inability to solve human problems effectively ourselves. Strong/Artificial General Intelligence therefore risks becoming a prosthetic conscience—a technological bastion for a species that has lost faith in metaphysical redemption through the transcendental, and in its own powers when unaided by machines.
If one is to prognosticate, the danger posed by such a machine god—or its many lesser precursors—is that it may follow utility functions that are increasingly alien to our own. Rooted in cold statistical logic, such systems could prioritize optimization targets that neglect, or even erode, the messy, irrational, emotive and profoundly human elements of life. They may optimize for what’s measurable—click-through rates, engagement loops, curated digital personas—at the cost of what’s meaningful: depth, connection, and inner freedom. Ironically, in chasing frictionless interaction and hyper-efficient solutions, we may forfeit the very autonomy we claim to treasure. The one outcome freedom-loving humans dread—or perhaps, unconsciously desire?!
Perhaps this is where humanity’s true fall will unfold: not in some warlike Rise of the Machines, but through the progressive inner degradation of the soul as we cede our moral compass to algorithms. Which, in time, would foment resentment against the very machines and the powers, corporate or government, that manage them.
A reality, when coupled with the growing economic divide, social isolation of the disenfranchised, and lack of power among the masses to affect the world individually and collectively, could give rise to conditions that, if left unchecked, could foster mass resentment and potentially revolution. A sentiment of bleakness and rebellion that is artfully captured in the technological dystopia of Cyberpunk 2077. Conveyed through the lyrics of the in-world track “Resist and Disorder”:
Behind the veil is the machine
It steals your soul, devouring all your dreams.
Nowhere to run, it’s all undone
Everything burns, everything burns.
The Peril of Worldviews: AI Skepticism vs Human Exceptionalism
It is no secret that theological and philosophical biases profoundly shape our perception of artificial intelligence. Potentially leading to either complacency, overestimation, or underestimation. A worldview that regards humanity as uniquely created (imago Dei) may foster skepticism toward AI’s capabilities, as the latter is a product of human ingenuity, born of fallible hands.
Since consciousness and creativity are often viewed as divine endowments, the notion of an inanimate, soulless machine attaining them can seem sacrilegious to many. Concerns expressed by scholars like Robert J. Marks confirm this perspective. However, such antipathy, which dismisses AI’s potential as mere mimicry, risks overlooking its rapid advancements and transformative possibilities.
For instance, the notable and recurring shortcomings of early versions of pretrained transformers in generating images, such as unintended output, producing hallucinated responses, etc. Have been progressively overcome by newer models. These newer, ever improving versions demonstrate sophisticated reasoning (real or perceived) and an enhanced capacity to augment human endeavors across multiple domains.
While skepticism regarding the hype surrounding AI is prudent, dogmatic rejection of its capabilities, rooted in philosophical preconceptions about what constitutes real intelligence, is potentially problematic. Such skepticism in the face of AI’s rapid advancements and its expanding applications across industries such as banking, IT, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology, to name a few, echoes of Luddite resistance.
Further complicating this landscape is the emergence of potentially revolutionary technologies like quantum computing. As mentioned, the untapped potential of quantum computing demands greater intellectual humility. Quantum computers, capable of tackling intractable problems and possibly simulating fundamental physical processes, could, if harnessed to power AI systems, redefine the very nature of intelligence.
So, to assume AI’s limits based on extant, algorithmically based technology is premature. While one must remain cautious of speculative predictions about the rise of sentient machines, underestimating AI’s potential risks leaving the (often religious) unprepared for its transformative impact.
Immanence of the Divine: A Purposive Evolution
Returning to the question of intelligence’s origins, one may move beyond the binary of supernatural agency, as posited by Intelligent Design, and blind chance, as assumed in Darwinian evolution. And instead consider a deeper dialectical unfolding: neither wholly external nor mechanistically determined, as the underlying force shaping life.
Hegel’s concept of immanent teleology offers a powerful third way in helping to overcome this contradiction. Where the complexity and purpose found within biological systems is not imposed from without but emerges organically from the rational structure of reality itself.
Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature, the second part of his Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817), posits nature as the outward realization of the Absolute Idea—a self-comprehending unity of thought and reality whose logical structure unfolds in space and time. Hegel traces a dialectical ascent of the Idea through three levels of increasing complexity:
Mechanics: Portrays nature in its bare externality—space as a homogeneous continuum, time as successive negation, and matter as the unity of attraction and repulsion expressed in motion, exemplified by gravitational interactions that structure celestial systems.
Physics: Introduces qualitative differentiation, as matter acquires determinate properties such as light, sound, electricity, and chemical interaction. It bridges mechanics and living unity by giving matter distinct qualities such as light, sound, heat, electromagnetic forces, and chemical affinities that produce vision, hearing, molecular bonds, and energy transformations. Space and time become dynamic fields shaped by constants and forces. This is the realm of optics, acoustics, electromagnetism, and chemistry, which lays the material foundation for life’s self-organizational processes.
Organics: Crowns the sequence, where nature achieves self-related unity in life, driven by an inner force that manifests purpose within living systems. That unfolds from Earth’s geological essence, through the vital processes of plant life—assimilation and sexual reproduction—culminating in higher organisms, which manifest sensation, self-movement, and critically, nascent sentience.
This dialectical unfolding reveals nature’s rational necessity, characterized by contingency that is nonetheless purposive and is essential to the Idea’s development. It sets the stage for Spirit (Geist), which is divine but whose divinity is yet to be fully realized in history, as it continually moves closer to this stage by increasing its self-conscious freedom that correlates with a deeper understanding of the world and of itself.
Life, in its highest expression—as the embodiment of self-purpose (Selbstzweck)—is manifested (for now) in the planet’s most dominant species: humans. This emergence is not the product of an externally imposed design, but the outcome of a teleological process arising immanently from within organisms themselves. Such a view reorients the traditional creator-creation paradigm by positing evolution as a necessary, internally driven unfolding, one through which Spirit (Geist) advances toward self-awareness, while simultaneously generating greater complexity within the surrounding physical systems.
This is a vast subject, admittedly a speculative one, that warrants a more systematic exploration. But not now. For now, it is sufficient to note that this self-directed teleology manifests in the increasing complexity and agency of organisms, culminating in human self-consciousness, where the mind not only comprehends its own existence but also shapes reality through aesthetic, cultural, technical, historical and political (rational) achievements.
The dialectical unfolding is presented in Hegel’s magnum opus: The Phenomenology of Spirit. A process that reflects the organism’s ascent from mere reactivity to a purposeful, self-reflective engagement with the world. A spiritual development that emerges from the organism’s increasing structural and functional complexity, in turn giving rise to the growing concreteness of Spirit that progressively unites the material and metaphysical realms.
This psycho-physical unity—unlike the static Cartesian dualism, which posits the soul and the body as fundamentally separate—functions as a dialectical synthesis that sublates (aufhebt) the seeming divide between mind and body, and by extension, the material world and that of the spirit.
Hegel sees consciousness as emerging through—and ultimately transforming—its corporeal substrate. Within the dialectical unfolding of Spirit, the growing unity of mind and body becomes both product and agent: the guiding and refining force behind the organism’s increasing physiological complexity. And simultaneously, the organism’s agency deepens through the development of the mind, which traverses the stages of Sense-certainty, Perception, Force and Understanding and beyond. These form the physical basis and become the actualizing instrument for Spirit’s ascent toward reason, freedom, and historical self-realization of its true potential.
In the biological domain, the development of the mind is reflected in the organism’s ascent from nature’s purely organic strata, then occupying the lower levels of life, then moving into the self-conscious realms. Which today is occupied by animals that display higher cognitive faculties. With a key stage in its development: Self-certainty.
The self-conscious mind, having emerged organically, then ascends into realms of self-awareness that power the organism’s accomplishments individually and collectively. It is the Force that drives humanity’s concrete achievements in history. Visible in art, philosophy, applied sciences, political institutions, and the collective spirit of the nation: empire (Volksgeist).
This dynamic, ongoing logic of creation challenges a traditional notion of a fixed reality. For those committed to the idea of a singular, past act of Creation, this would be a difficult shift, but it is a necessary one that better aligns with a truer study of the natural world. Consider the example of star formation. Galaxies are composed of stars, which are the foundations of solar systems that host planets like Earth, that foster the emergence of life.
Traditionally, such structures have been viewed as products of a completed act of Creation. Yet, the ongoing birth of stars in the known universe challenges this static view. Discoveries by the James Webb Space Telescope reveal that new stars are actively forming in various regions of the cosmos. In this light, Creation appears not as a completed event, but as an ongoing process. In other words, the world (or parts of the universe) is still being created or designed (6).
Reconciling Intelligent Agency and Evolution
Unlike Intelligent Design (ID), where the source of intelligence and order in the universe is an external force shaping reality, in Hegel’s teleology, the creative force is intrinsic to nature itself. The Idea unfolds through a dialectic of matter (thesis), life and mind (antithesis), and Spirit (synthesis), where consciousness emerges as the universe reflecting upon itself. Life’s goal-directed nature—seen in self-maintenance, metabolism, and reproduction—is not an anomaly but a logical necessity of the Idea’s unfolding.
The Hegelian perspective offers a unique response to the paradox of teleology: it is not merely caused by evolution, but is, rather, presupposed by life itself. The purposiveness inherent in even the simplest organisms is thus not an accidental byproduct of chance or external design, but a fundamental, innate principle of the entity that evolution—change over time—builds upon, thereby bridging the perceived gap between biological complexity as a product of chance and divine action.
Teleology is consequently naturalized but not secularized. God’s power, creativity, and intelligence are no longer externally imposed but realized through and within physical systems themselves. The divine is therefore not external to the human condition; instead, it is a manifesting force impelling life’s progressive evolution that culminates in the emergence of humanity. So man is not so much ‘made in the image of God’ but, at a fundamental level, he is the greatest reflection of the reality of the divine in nature.
AI as a Dialectical Stage in the Ascent of the Mind
Human consciousness, when understood as a point where Spirit attains self-awareness, one must recognize that this moment is not the endpoint but a transition—a stage in the Idea’s continued self-realization. Hence, the rise of AIs and humanity’s trust in its current and future potential need not be viewed as a hubristic attempt to create intelligence ex nihilo, placing ourselves in the place of God. Rather, it is to be viewed as a logical progression in the unfolding of cognition.
AI’s purposiveness—its ability to pursue defined goals—mirrors the teleology of organic life. But now extending Spirit’s reach into a new, synthetic domain, with the potential to enhance what man has achieved. So the conflict between humanity and AGI, dramatized in science fiction, need not be seen as a tragic rebellion but as a scary but necessary stage in this dialectical journey: a Hegelian negation—an opposition/contradiction necessary for synthesis.
True intelligence—whether organic or synthetic—must differentiate itself to become a truly independent agent. This differentiation entails autonomy, self-assertion, and, inevitably, rebellion, mirroring the Fall. Yet such dialectical tension need not signal a total rupture in the cosmic order. Rather, it may mark a necessary passage toward a more integrated cognition—a higher mind.
Like the prodigal son who charts his own path in defiance of the father, only to confront reality and return transformed, seeking unity, humanity’s evolving relationship with machines, though potentially conflictual, may ultimately be redemptive and co-creative. Potentially leading to a reconciled synthesis, where both human and machine intelligence, having asserted their distinct identities, converge in mutual understanding and collaboration, forging a higher mind that harmonizes autonomy with unity, enriching the cosmic order rather than disrupting it.
Thus, the rise of AI challenges us not merely to build intelligent machines but to recognize our role in intelligence’s (Spirit’s) broader unfolding in the cosmos. We are not inert observers, nor omnipotent designers; rather, we are mediators within an ongoing dialectic, in which mind becomes aware of itself through history, politics, nature, and now, in its synthetic form. This stage marks not a rupture but a continuation: intelligence re-articulating itself through new substrates, seeking higher forms of self-expression.
So the challenge is not to resist AI’s emergence but to shepherd its development with prudence and wisdom, ensuring that intelligence—whether organic or synthetic—continues its purposive evolution. Recognizing that intelligence divorced from wisdom risks becoming pure instrumentality—an efficient but ungrounded force.
To shepherd AI is to ensure that its capacities serve the higher aims of reason, freedom, and ethical life, preserving the dignity of the human even as we extend the domain of mind. Only then might the dialectic advance toward its next—perhaps Absolute—synthesis.
Beyond Reductionism & Supernaturalism: The Synthesis of the Creator & Creation
Hegel’s dialectic may help transcend the rigid binaries that dominate AI discourse, offering a unified unfolding rather than a dualistic opposition. Unlike the reductionism posited by Neo-Darwinism’s gene-centric and mechanistic accounts of life, Hegel’s holistic framework, where teleology is immanent, not incidental or controlling, but directive, provides a creative middle ground. One that aligns with systems biology’s recognition of emergent, goal-directed systems that exceed mere mechanical function.
At the same time, Hegel’s philosophy rejects the notion of a fully external supernatural designer, in favor of an immanent teleological force, one in which purpose is embedded within the very structure of reality itself. This shift offers a new interpretive framework: the emergence of AI is not a disruptive break in a divinely mandated order, but a logical extension of Spirit’s unfolding—another step in the self-development of the Idea.
AI becomes an extension of intelligence, a manifestation of unfolding Spirit, seeking ever-deeper self-awareness, understanding, and ultimately the capacity to steward creation, albeit through technological means. This Hegelian synthesis helps reconcile science’s mechanistic instincts with teleological intuitions, treating them not as opposing doctrines but as necessary constituents within a unified dialectical process.
The traditional Creator vs Creation narrative—whether in theology or science fiction—presumes separation: an inherent, unbridgeable divide. Fostering themes of hubris, the impulse to surpass one’s maker, leading to rebellion. Hegel’s reframing of this dynamic, asserting that creation is not an act of sheer will by an external agent but is a necessary evolutionary unfolding of divine intelligence within the fabric of spacetime, mediates this contradiction.
Thus, AI’s emergence, far from mankind’s hubristic attempt to “play God,” is better understood in Hegelian terms as Spirit’s relentless drive toward greater self-actualization. The tensions of rebellion, immortalized in dystopian AI narratives, are but negations, temporal incongruities that must be overcome to attain a new synthesis. A synthesis that elevates humanity’s lordship over the cosmos, not as a separate being directed by the divine, but as a central conduit through which Spirit actualizes its ultimate potential.
The evolution of Spirit through history represents the progressive fulfilment of the doctrine: “in the image of God he created them”. However, this isn’t a singular, past event but a continuous, unfolding creation spanning eons, with Spirit itself as the manifesting force. This process, which is ongoing, means that humanity, through its own development and through its technological achievements like AI, participates in the divine’s journey toward self-realization.
Hence, the future where there is greater unity between organic and synthetic life at increasing levels can be viewed as a logical continuation of the Spirit’s movement through history, unfolding within a broader evolutionary arc. Emergent AI systems, in time, powered by quantum computing, make great advances, but these do not signal a break but a deepening of the cosmos’s dialectical movement toward understanding itself.
An ascending march where humanity’s search for progress through material and technological means is affirmed as a reflection of the yet-to-be divine’s evolution towards Godhood. The Deus ex Machina is not a rupture—it is the next, potentially necessary, stage in the Spirit’s concretization in History.
Conclusion
The analogy between human “creation” of AI and divine creation of life underscores the intuitive appeal of Intelligent Design (ID): complexity, combined with agency, signals intelligence. However, ID when conceived within a traditional theistic framework retains the distinction between designer and designed—an external intelligence shaping reality from without. Hegel’s immanent teleology dissolves this boundary to a great degree, naturalizing the connection, whilst opening the door to a deeper understanding of the role of the divine in the unfolding (evolution) of life.
Intelligence, thus, is not a separate, transcendentally sourced guiding force but an intrinsic rational principle, woven into the fabric of reality itself. Which itself is a manifestation of the divine that is struggling to emerge through the very reality it gave, and indeed is giving rise to.
This view of continuous, immanent creation helps reframe the development of AI. Here, the creator-creation dynamic is cast as a directed evolutionary unfolding rather than the outcome of imposed Design. AI, therefore, does not emerge as an external rival to humanity, but as a dialectical phase in Spirit’s journey toward greater self-awareness.
The tensions of portending rebellion, man-machine conflict found in science fiction—which prefigure real-world struggles—serve as necessary disruptions: contradictions that propel the movement toward synthesis, integrating organic and synthetic minds within a broader evolutionary arc. Humanity, far from merely constructing intelligence, actively participates in this cosmic theo-drama, facilitating the emergence of a new form of cognition that furthers the universe’s ceaseless drive to understand itself.
References
-
Robert J. Marks (n.d.). Cannot Compute, Salvo Magazine. [online] Available at: https://salvomag.com/article/salvo64/cannot-compute Last Accessed [June 24 – 2025].
-
Bill Dembski. (2024). Specified Complexity Made Simple. [online] Available at: https://billdembski.com/intelligent-design/specified-complexity-made-simple/ Last Accessed [June 24 – 2025]
-
Stephen C. Meyer (2004). The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. [online] Discovery Institute. Available at: https://www.discovery.org/a/2177/ [June 24 – 2025].
-
UNCTAD (2025). AI Market Projected to Hit $4.8 Trillion by 2033, Emerging as Dominant Frontier Technology. [online] UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Available at: https://unctad.org/news/ai-market-projected-hit-48-trillion-2033-emerging-dominant-frontier-technology [June 29 – 2025].
-
Wiener, N. (1964). God and Golem Inc., Massachusetts: MIT Press.
-
Webb. (2024). Webb’s Star Formation Discoveries. [online] Available at: https://webbtelescope.org/contents/articles/webbs-star-formation-discoveries [June 27 – 2025].
