The claim has been made that creationist arguments result from either incredulity or agency detection bias. This claim is primarily a way of dismissing any argument that would infer a designer Regardless of the nature of the argument. The insistence of this problem is never made with a reasonable explanation, the person making it simply continues to insist on the fallacy or bias.
Incredulity fallacy
An argument from incredulity Claims that an idea has to be false because it contradicts the person's personal beliefs, or that they cannot imagine that it is true. It can also take the opposite form of making the case that an idea has to be true for the same reasons. The problem with this fallacy is the fact that personal belief does not in and of itself mean that something is true or false.
The claim that creationist arguments are arguments from incredulity, is claiming that we are making the case that ideas such as universal common descent evolution and abiogenesis are contrary to our personal beliefs and therefore must be wrong. While I'm sure you can find some Christians out there that are making such arguments, it is not a standard creationist argument against anything that evolutionists claim. Furthermore, you see evolutionists using the same fallacy.
The reason is that most creationist arguments against evolutionist claims do not qualify as arguments from incredulity, is that more than personal belief is being put forth as arguments against evolutionist claims. For example, arguments against abiogenesis include arguments based on statistics, chemistry, biology, in thermodynamics. They're not arguments saying I cannot imagine or believe it can happen, their arguments saying that it can't happen because the science that we have says it cannot happen. There is a huge difference.
Agency Detection Bias
Agency detection bias Is the tendency to assume intelligent agency and purposeful intervention where there may or may not be any. One of the major problems with this claim is the fact that it is extremely easy to make, but almost impossible to prove. That is in order to prove this claim true you need to prove that no intelligent agency was involved. Sometimes this may be possible but other times it simply results in circular reasoning.
The reason why arguments for intelligent agency in phenomenon such as the origin of life does not qualify as agency detection bias is because it is based on what we know works and not simply a gut feeling. Furthermore, making this claim against all inference of an intelligent designer also invalidates sciences such as Forensics, and Archaeology because both of these fields depend heavily on distinguishing intelligent agency from natural causes.
Ultimately, inferences of intelligent design are based on the fact that as intelligent agents ourselves we know what intelligent agency is capable of doing. Consequently, once it is reasonable to eliminate natural causes as an explanation, with intelligent agency being capable of accomplishing the task, intelligent agency becomes a logical conclusion. The only bias that seems to exist is against intelligent agency, not for it.
Conclusion
The claim that Creationist arguments result from incredulity or agency detection bias, is clearly false. If anything, it results from the fact that the person making the claim cannot accept any arguments for or against creation or for an intelligent designer. Furthermore, they clearly have an anti-Intelligent agency bias because they refuse to see any hint of intelligent agency regardless of the evidence. Ultimately, it is amusing that they need such arguments in order to provide an excuse for dismissing what creationists have to say.
