Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Angrboda]

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.

The claim was that "intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information". If I describe the other alternatives and why they are wrong, then this is support for the claim that intelligence stands alone. Rather than shout argument from incredulity, think about the nature of the claim I'm making. For example, imagine someone claims "idea A is the only good idea". In order to support this claim, they must show why ideas B, C, and D are not good ideas. Does that make sense? In order to show that intelligence is the only cause capable, I must show why the other causes are not sufficient. 

Moreover, intelligence is observed to be capable of producing it all the time. Through the input of intelligence, we have developed computer code, written language, radio communication, and have even tampered with genetic code. All of these are specified and sequence based. Intelligence is an adequate cause.

(emphasis mine)

These are radically different claims. The first is true but unremarkable. The second would be true if you'd actually shown other causes are insufficient, but you haven't done that. All you've done is whine about improbabilities and use undefinable terms like "specified information." Showing that the exact process of abiogenesis responsible for life on this planet is unknown doesn't advance the proposition of intelligent design. It's just a fallacious argument. The fact is that nobody has been able to create a filter that can reliably separate out those things that were designed from those that weren't designed. In its absence, we have a bunch of arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. If this is the best that the ID movement can produce, it is a very poor showing. More, because it's a possibility that humans evolved their ability to design things, you haven't even shown that design points to a non-natural process. That's a complete failure for those hoping that design is the magic bullet that points to God.