So your an Athiest

[AAA]

I understand that I'm lucky to have access to the available information. But the science will quickly come to a halt if we discourage discussion on what the evidence means. Discussion on the meaning of evidence is how science progresses. I don't really disagree with the evidence itself. For example I understand most of the mechanisms by which DNA can be manipulated. I disagree on the theoretical grounds that say that changing the DNA improves its information content and that life's genetic code developed without the input of intelligence. You have access to the information too, go check it out and keep an open mind. You tell me to open my eyes, but I'm concerned that I'm not the one with my eyes shut.

---

AAA, I was there when powerful church leaders began promoting "Intelligent Design" theory in the 1990s. I never got as deep into biology as you are now, but I read enough of the ideas put out by the so-called scientists who wrote such books to be clear on what they are trying to do, and that it isn't science. It's an effort by a megagroup which calls itself "The Discovery Center", and it is bankrolled by evangelical churches - particularly those which fear science the most (it threatens job security for evangelical preachers). Yes, they actually paid these weak scientists who grew up in their churches to write the bullshit which launched their careers, and the authenticity of their  scientific credentials are nothing what they appear to be at first glance.

Remember the Scientific Method, and how it works? I addressed this with you already, and strangely it's the one significant point I made for you which you have ignored completely. You cannot call it science unless you go through all five steps in sequence! Starting with a question on how things work qualifies as a first step, putting you on track for a scientific conclusion followed by data gathering, analysis, ideas, and testing. If your final conclusions are different than what your initial ideas were going in, then there's a much better chance that you actually did some science! ID doesn't do that, it begins with an idea which religious people wish to believe, and then sets out in an attempt to prove it.

If you aren't aware of just how badly the people behind ID want to believe that life has a designer, and more importantly how badly they want you to believe their idea, then I have something here for your education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

I attempted to address the scientific method point. I respect it and what it has done for humanity, but I am arguing for design from the same evidence that they argue the absence of design. It is amazing how the competing ideas overlap so much, yet are total opposites. It is difficult to do the scientific method on something we can't observe. If we want to study something that we cannot observe (such as the causal agent being a designer) we should appeal to what we know from experience. This is the type of logic that Darwin himself outlined. Our uniform experience tells us that complex sequential information comes from intelligence. Therefore when we see intelligent sequences around us, we should assume an intelligent cause. If another explanation for its origin arises and fits the data, then we can accept it. But I (and others) think that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis have problems.

Yes, some people want their religious views taught in school (not me). But what if the truth really is that it was designed? should we pretend that it isn't in order to prevent teaching religion?

---

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

Things, that are demonstrable and repeatable. What is ONE thing you can do, that ALWAYS works and can not be explained without the existence of god?

Well I could point out a lot of things that science has yet to explain. But you won't accept that as evidence of a designer. If I say fine tuning of the universe, you will probably say that I am just arguing a God of the gaps theory. I get the impression that you may be so stuck in the idea that God cannot exist that no matter what you see around you, you will always expect a better explanation than god to exist.

---

I wasn't linking you to it for the article, but for the several dozen links they provided, illuminating most of the points you've been asking us about.

Ok, I'll give them a read