Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Jesster]

This is an unsupported claim. This is what I'm asking evidence for. Are you a presuppositionist or something?

ANY evidence. You've given me none for the above claim.

I didn't realize that is what you wanted evidence for. 

The alternatives to intelligence are random chance association of nucleotides and chemical necessity. We could actually do a calculation to show how unlikely a protein forming by random chance in a sea of amino acids is if you want.

Chemical necessity does not seem to be an adequate cause either. There is no known process leading nucleotides to arrange themselves into biologically functional sequences. The different bases attached to the sugar-phosphate backbone do not attract each other at different strengths. If they did, this would destroy the ability to convey information, because the resulting sequence would begin to become repetitive. Once again, I recommend Signature in the Cell if you want a more elaborate description of the other causes that have been put forward over the years.

So your evidence for your claim is that you don't like alternative claims? Have you heard of the argument from incredulity fallacy? Are you going to give evidence for your claim, or are you just going to try to beat up on other ideas? If you are just going to duck and dodge, I am not going to waste any more time on you.