Does nature have a creative power? Philosophers and theologians have been debating this question for thousands of years. In his short essay on nature (Nature: Cause or Effect), Bediuzzaman Said Nursi argues that nature is more like a pen—an instrument through which something is written—rather than the author of what appears on the page.
To prove his point, Nursi states three possibilities to explain the existence of things in the universe:
- Everything is created by causes
- Everything is created on its own
- Everything is an outcome of natural laws.
The common theme of these three possibilities is that creation is dependent on some natural rules and causes. Bediuzzaman refutes these possibilities by arguing that these rules and causes are not conscious; thus, they are not aware of other causes or the ultimate purpose. From this, Nursi concludes that natural causes are not true creators but veils—screens behind which the act of creation takes place, while we perceive only laws and outcomes on the surface. This article explores this argument by relating it to contemporary scientific and technological examples.
Mechanisms do not explain agency
One point of discussion in this debate is whether elements in nature operate randomly or follow a certain manual, so to speak. Modern molecular biology give us numerous examples to ponder over this point. For instance, T-cells, a type of immune cells, are able to distinguish whether a cell belongs to the host or not via their highly precise receptors [2]. Such a precise receptor cannot be adequately explained by randomness alone, without a system of built-in rules that guide and stabilize its formation. Similarly, B-cells, which are another type of immune cells, can produce highly accurate antibodies against pathogens in the body. To be able to produce these antibodies, they have gone through a process called hypermutation and selection in which many versions of antibodies with small changes are made and only the most effective ones are retained [3]. Such a process is not random; on the contrary it follows specific selection criteria. Neither B-cells, nor other components involved in B-cell mutation have intelligence or training to conduct these processes on their own. They appear to be following an instruction manual, which has been provided by an authority who knows every detail of these processes.
Some people have the tendency to underestimate such complexity as soon as the mechanism of these systems are demystified through scientific discoveries. Discovering the underlying mechanism of a complex biological process helps us understand the system but does not indicate that the mechanism has the power to conduct the action. In this article, I further discuss this perspective by leveraging the recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) as analogies to clarify the distinction between mechanism and agency.
Why technology makes this easier to see
I use examples from AI and modern computing because they can turn abstract ideas into concrete pictures, even for children, who often find abstraction difficult. For instance, the idea of recording all of our deeds by a Creator is easier to grasp in a world where phones, sensors, and street cameras quietly record what happens around us. Being in multiple places at the same time is also easier to understand via technologies such as virtual reality.
Several examples from computer science and modern technology help us better understand the relationship between mechanisms, rules, and agency in creation—the difference between what executes and what intends. To develop software, we need a programmer—someone with intelligence, power, and intention to write and direct the code. A book cannot exist without a writer, and software cannot exist without a programmer. Similarly, in biology we observe many “books” of information, and information, by its very nature, points beyond itself to an author.
Generative AI makes this contrast especially vivid. With generative AI technologies and methods such as vibe coding, one can now produce working software code using a simple prompt. This shows that parts of writing code can be automated once the underlying structure and rules are already in place. In other words, machines can learn the mechanism of coding, which implies that producing complex software happens automatically. Yet the “autonomy” is borrowed: the AI system is executing mechanisms that someone else designed, trained, and powered. It depends entirely on human-designed architectures, pre-existing data, external energy, and meaningful prompts to function. AI can generate text or code, but it cannot decide why it should do so, nor can it sustain or direct its own existence. We can therefore compare generative AI to a keyboard or a pen—a powerful tool, but still a tool—which requires a “writer” to operate it. Today, the writer (i.e., the user) no longer needs to specify every detail; a short prompt can be sufficient.
Likewise, biological processes—despite their sophistication and apparent autonomy—do not possess agency. They operate according to rules but rules themselves do not create; they are enacted. Therefore, just as intelligent machines require a human creator, life itself points to a Creator beyond the mechanisms that sustain it. As the Qur’an states: “His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is” (Surah Ya-Sin 36:82).
Randomness, direction, and purpose
Another common argument suggests that random changes, given enough time, can account for the complexity we observe in life. Time certainly amplifies processes—but time alone does not define direction or meaning. Random variation can generate differences, but without a standard for evaluation, there is no sense of progress.
An everyday analogy makes this clear: Randomly rearranging letters indefinitely will not produce a meaningful book unless there is already an understanding of language and meaning. In the same way, biological changes require more than chance—it requires a framework that distinguishes what works from what does not.
This can be illustrated through computer algorithms, too. An algorithm that undergoes random modifications cannot “improve” unless improvement is defined. In AI, this role is played by an optimization or reward function, which could be described as a built-in goal. Even self-learning systems such as AlphaGo require pre-defined goals and evaluation rules. Without knowing what to optimize for, learning would be impossible.
Likewise, natural processes that seem to develop or improve over time presuppose a standard by which “improvement” is measured. Yet these processes do not define their own goals or evaluation criteria. Order, harmony, beauty, and directed complexity therefore point not merely to rules, but to a conscious source that established those rules with intention.
Autonomy still requires sustenance
A further question naturally follows: even if creation has an origin, does it then run on its own? This is the classical debate between a continuously active Creator and a non-intervening God.
The clock analogy is often used to argue for non-intervention: once a clock is wound, it runs independently. Yet this analogy fails upon closer inspection. Even a clock requires continuous energy; without it, the system stops. The universe likewise depends on energy at every moment. Moreover, unlike a clock, natural systems are not fully deterministic. Flexibility, contingency, and openness to change are intrinsic features of reality.
From a technological perspective, even the most autonomous AI systems remain continuously dependent on external inputs. Agentic AI requires power to operate, retraining when conditions change, and intervention when goals or constraints are altered. Apparent autonomy does not remove dependence—it conceals it.
Similarly, natural laws are not independent actors but frameworks through which ongoing sustenance is expressed. Knowing how a system operates does not eliminate the need for the One who sustains its operation. Rather, the consistency of rules can be understood as a veil through which continuous divine power and will are manifested.
Rules as a veil, not a replacement
Seen in this light, natural laws can be understood not as rivals to divine action, but as expressions of consistency in how that action unfolds. Nature, then, is not the author of existence but the script through which existence is written. Rules describe patterns; they do not generate meaning. Mechanisms enable processes; they do not explain purpose.
By reflecting on both nature and technology, we are reminded of a simple but profound insight: understanding the workings of the universe does not diminish the question of its Creator. It deepens it.
References
1. Nursi, Said. Nature: Cause or Effect. NJ: Tughra Books. 2012.
2. Johannes Pettmann, Anna Huhn, Enas Abu Shah, Mikhail A Kutuzov, Daniel B Wilson, Michael L Dustin, Simon J Davis, P Anton van der Merwe, Omer Dushek (2021) The discriminatory power of the T cell receptor eLife 10:e67092.
3. Syeda, M.Z., Hong, T., Huang, C. et al. B cell memory: from generation to reactivation: a multipronged defense wall against pathogens. Cell Death Discov. 10, 117 (2024).
