The Agency Assumption: Why Do We Look for Intelligence in the Unknown?
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Gordon J. Glover. Gordon J. Glover holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Ocean Engineering and is the author of Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and Creation. A veteran of the U.S. Navy, he now resides in the Washington, D.C. area where he works and runs the popular blog, "Beyond the Firmament".
The other day I was working on my laptop at the breakfast table when I heard a strange noise coming from my office. I stopped whatever it was I was doing and listened. At first this noise sounded like a persistent crackle – like a ball of wadded up cellophane. But as I listened closer, I heard patterns in the crackling that didn’t sound naturally produced. It’s difficult to describe, but something irregular in the audio signal got me thinking that the noise was being generated by a critter! Once I made the mental connection to deliberate conscious activity, I easily imagined that a rat was chewing a hole in something. Or that my daughter’s hamster was on the loose. Or that the cat was playing with something that he shouldn’t – like the hamster!
I decided to investigate. As I headed towards my office, the noise suddenly stopped. A quick scan of the room offered no clues, but the mere fact that the noise stopped as I approached confirmed my initial assessment: the cause of the noise was definitely intelligent! Some critter was chewing on something and actually had enough sense to keep it down as I approached him.
I headed back to the kitchen and just as I sat down, the noise started up again. Yup – now I’m extra-sure that there is something alive in my office. This time I snuck up to my office as quietly as I could, to avoid tipping off the critter to my presence. I wanted to catch he/she/it in the act of doing whatever it was that sounded like crumpled up cellophane. Only as I got closer, the sound seemed to be coming from my desktop. Are you kidding me? What rodent has the nerve to violate my sacred workspace? This is war! Except for one problem – the noise was coming from one of my computer speakers. What?
As it turned out, there was a bad connection or some kind of electrical interference causing my speaker to make crackling noises. To this day, I haven’t figured out exactly what it was*. Nor have I heard that same noise again. But the entire ordeal got me thinking about intelligent design.
Obviously, there was nothing illegitimate about initially associating the audio signal with deliberate conscious activity. Just as SETI researchers search for electromagnetic transmissions that have no known natural cause, I couldn’t match the mysterious noise with anything from my mental “database” of naturally occurring office sounds. Without a positive ID on the noise, I naturally assumed that agency was involved. So here are a few questions for discussion.
Was I wrong to form a hypothesis that included intelligent agency – even though that hypothesis was later falsified by new information?
Would I have still made the design inference had my mental database of naturally occurring office sounds contained an entry for “weird speaker crackling”? In other words, was my design hypothesis merely an argument based on what I didn’t know about naturally occurring sounds (argument from ignorance)?
Pre-scientific human cultures, both past and present, seem to over-anthropomorphize and over zoomorphize undirected natural phenomena. Does our psychology predispose us to readily ascribe agency to unknown causes? Could there have been any evolutionary advantages to this?
*Since this article was written, my left computer speaker has completely stopped working.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
August 31st 2010
Pseudogenes and vestiges are like the tool marks and serial numbers that indicate material history.
Yes, once we have cells, there is strong evidence of evolution, though it’s not at all clear that neo-Darwinism can account for it.
Reply to this commentAugust 31st 2010
Bilbo,
We know that “In the beginnnig, God created…” But in terms of how God might have created life, which of these statements do you identify with:
(1) The first animals appeared on earth out of nowhere, fully formed—end of story.
(2) The first living cells appeared on earth out of nowhere, fully formed. And then some version of evolution took place to generate the biological diversity we see today.
(3) The first building blocks of cells appeared on earth out of nowhere, fully formed. These could self-organize into cells and then evolve into multi-cellular life.
(4) Natural processes, that scientists have yet to replicate under laboratory conditions, somehow caused the first cells to self-organize in a step-wise fashion from simple organic compounds. Details of the biochemical intermediates might never be discoverd—but it shouldn’t stop scientists from investigating.
Reply to this commentSeptember 1st 2010
Hi Gordon,
I most closely identify with (2). I’m not sure whether the subsequent evolution was fully natural or whether supernatural (or intelligent) intervention was needed (either directly or indirectly through a chain of deterministic events). I have no problem with scientists continuing to look for a fully natural explanation for the origin of life. However, I think there is sufficient evidence to hold a reasonable belief that the first cells were designed.
Now could you answer my question: If there are no tool marks or serial numbers on a watch, is an inference to design unreasonable?
And would the fact that there are no naturally occurring nucleotides be a tool mark?
Reply to this commentSeptember 1st 2010
Bilbo,
“However, I think there is sufficient evidence to hold a reasonable belief that the first cells were designed.”
Why, in your mind, is design necessarily incompatible with (4) above? Why couldn’t they have been designed to self-organize from prebiotic compounds according the ordinary patterns of material behavior? Why does design require a suspension of natural law?
“If there are no tool marks or serial numbers on a watch, is an inference to design unreasonable?”
I’d say that the design inference is reasonable with or without descernable tool marks / serial numbers. Those aditional features would simply offer clues to the material origins of the watch—which is what biologists seek to do with OOL research. Whether or not the watch/cell was designed is a different question than material history. Was the watch manufactured from pre-existing material or did it magically appear?
Reply to this commentSeptember 1st 2010
“And would the fact that there are no naturally occurring nucleotides be a tool mark?”
No, if ture, it would be the absence of a tool mark. A tool mark, in this analogy, would offer some clue as to the material history of the article in question. If nucleotides do not occur naturally, then they would likely offer little insight into OOL research.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
Gordon,
I have greatly enjoyed your conversation with Bilbo and the others. I appreciate your willingness to not only contribute to biologos but also to take the time to continue the conversation regarding the questions you raised. I find it to be very contructive as I try to undestand the issues myself.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
“3.Pre-scientific human cultures, both past and present, seem to over-anthropomorphize and over zoomorphize undirected natural phenomena. Does our psychology predispose us to readily ascribe agency to unknown causes? Could there have been any evolutionary advantages to this?”
I find this to be a compelling point. It is interesting that in all of our modernity, in a situation we sense to be dangerous, we come to conclusions that contradict what we know about the physical world. For example, a very rational person may be convinced that someone is following them down a dark street although they can plainly see no one is there when they turn around.
These fears and conclusions are especially prevalent in children, but I don’t think we are ever completely rid of them.
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
Gordon: Why, in your mind, is design necessarily incompatible with (4) above? Why couldn’t they have been designed to self-organize from prebiotic compounds according the ordinary patterns of material behavior? Why does design require a suspension of natural law?
I don’t think design is incompatible with (4). It’s just that I don’t think the evidence points to (4). I think it points to (2). As I said before, I have no problem with scientists trying to come up with a fully natural explanation for the OOL. I very much doubt they will find one, though.
No, if ture, it would be the absence of a tool mark. A tool mark, in this analogy, would offer some clue as to the material history of the article in question. If nucleotides do not occur naturally, then they would likely offer little insight into OOL research.
Then I think we have good evidence that nucleotides “magically appeared.”
Reply to this commentSeptember 2nd 2010
200 years ago the evidence pointed to (1). But we now have evidence that bridges the causal gap between (1) and (2). So the lack of evidence for material history does not necessarily mean that some had no material history (ie: de novo creation).
That way of thinking leads to theories that Aliens built Stonehenge and the Pyramids. Since archeologists can’t explain how primitive man built these, they must have had extra-terrestrial help, right?
It’s ok to say, “I don’t know”.
Reply to this commentSeptember 3rd 2010
Gordon: 200 years ago the evidence pointed to (1). But we now have evidence that bridges the causal gap between (1) and (2).
Unless Behe is right. The fact that Lynn Margulis (certainly no fan of ID) offers exactly the same criticism of neo-Darwinism as Behe makes me think there is reasonable doubt that we have bridged that gap.
So the lack of evidence for material history does not necessarily mean that some had no material history (ie: de novo creation).
Agreed.
That way of thinking leads to theories that Aliens built Stonehenge and the Pyramids. Since archeologists can’t explain how primitive man built these, they must have had extra-terrestrial help, right?
If it’s true that we don’t know how those structures could have been built by humans (is it true?), then there is at least some evidence for ET. Enough evidence to reasonably believe in ET? I would say no.
It’s ok to say, “I don’t know”.
Yes it is. If one thinks there is sufficient evidence for ID (and I think there is), it’s also okay to say I believe ID is the best explanation.
Reply to this commentSeptember 4th 2010
If I had to summarize my position, Gordon, it’s that reasonable people often disagree on issues, usually because there is evidence in favor of either view. The challenge for us, as human beings and as Christians, is to learn to get along, even when we disagree.
Reply to this commentSeptember 7th 2010
Well said, Bilbo.
Reply to this comment