Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Chas]

All I was trying to say was that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information.

You are presupposing that this information was specified. From that error the rest of your erroneous conclusions follow.

Someone said that was wrong, so I asked them if they know of another cause. I'm not saying that because we don't know how it was done we appeal to God, I'm saying that because we know intelligence is capable, then it is not irrational to conclude that it played a role. 

What would you consider evidence of design?

---

Or one could try to understand natural selection.  
You make the same old simplistic argument looking only at end products instead of the process of evolution.

I understand natural selection. It isn't a creative force, it just allows the genes of the most reproductively successful to increase in frequency.

It is a shaping force. New information is created by mutation and recombination.

You assume that the best reproducers are the ones that have deviated more from the norm.

First, I assume no such thing.
Second, don't tell me what I think.

---

Other than the evidenced cause, you mean?  It wouldn't and doesn't matter.  The question is malformed and uniformative regardless.

"If not god than what" ignores demonstrable fact, and even if it didn't...would amount to no more than a failure of your own imagination.

I didn't say "If not god than what". You know that there is only one known cause capable of producing this type of information. It is possible that there is another cause that has eluded scientists for decades, but I don't see a reason to stretch my imagination to believe that.

Wrong.  Natural selection does it.