Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

I think that putting mechanisms in place to preserve the integrity of the genetic code is more moral than letting our genetic code degrade to the point  where we suffer defects and functional disparities.

I don't think our genetic code degrades, but I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Wouldn't a stable genetic code be more in line with a deliberate design, and allow for fewer things like Necrotizing fasciitis, the rabies virus and the terrifying amalgam of toxins that nature has developed?  Human designers seek efficiency, safety, and reliability in their inventions.  Wouldn't an intellect capable of designing a universe be even more efficient, since it would not be limited by resources and a lack of sufficient information and experience?

When I say degrading genetic code, I mean mutations slowly accumulating to the point where the sequences no longer produce fuctionality. In other words, an enzyme may no longer work if there is a certain mutation. If the enzyme is responsible for an immune response, then losing this enzyme would prevent the organism from being healthy. The virus removes the individuals who have suffered a mutation that cripples the immune enzyme. In this way, only the individuals with the less degraded (mutated) code will survive. It would preserve the more original code.

---

Define 'define' so that I know what definitions count. Also please define 'rigorously' so I can meet that criterion. I'm joking of course. Maybe instead of getting hung up on the quality of the definitions (which I did provide), maybe deal with the concept of the argument. 

Why?  Because your definitions are vapid and empty.  Let's start with your definition of specified.  "The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function."  Function is in the eye of the beholder.  If we are talking about the circular pattern that a fairy ring makes, it has a function in the metabolism of the fungus.  If you are talking about DNA, then it has the function of guiding the production of proteins.  These are metaphors for what is actually going on.  In reality, all you have are chemical sequences doing what chemicals do.  One can use adaptive terminology such as 'X' is a function of 'Y' about practically anything, from the circular pattern of the fairy ring to the 'function' of plants in a swampland ecosystem.  Yet not all of these indicate design by an intelligence.  So the fact that it contains 'specified information' under your definitions really says nothing about whether the article was intelligently designed or not.  All it shows is the flexibility of the human mind in applying metaphor to physical systems.  Such talk is implicitly teleological, so it implies that the function was specified by someone, a designer.  So to claim that the fairy ring has a function is to implicitly say that it was designed, which is bollocks.  So all you are saying is effectively, "this system was designed" by calling it specified under that definition.

You say that information is defined "as that which is conveyed by a sequence of things."  Conveyed?  By what and to whom?  This is more implicitly teleological talk.  DNA doesn't convey the production of proteins to a protein making machine, it interacts with chemicals in the cell.  And what is the 'that' which is conveyed?  Apples?  Oysters?  Ideas? Calling the sequential pattern in DNA information is just a subtle way of begging the question.

So you have two definitions, both of which refer to teleological metaphors which implicitly imply that the article is designed.  You might as well have just skipped the argument and declared, "They're designed because I say they are."  Your definitions of information and specified don't point to anything concrete that can be identified purely from a description of the thing you're referring to.  Your definitions are too high level to be of use for anything beyond cloaking your assumptions.

So do you deny that the DNA code provides blueprints for a desired function? Yes it's all based on chemical interactions, but the fact of the matter is that a DNA sequence (sometimes) codes for an mRNA molecule which codes for a protein which functions in a specific way.

 I'm curious how you would describe the function of DNA.

And it is conveyed by a sequence of things like it says in the definition. And it does convey the production of proteins based on its chemical properties. If you have problems with me calling the genetic code information, then you can email the authors of my biochemistry textbook. I left the book at school, but they titled a section of the book something to the effect of DNA and informational molecules. 

I understand that identity is the first law of logic, but you're taking these definitions too far. You're clearly one of the brightest people on this forum, and it would be a shame to not get your evaluation of the concept of the argument (which I think you understand) just because you want to spend the whole time defining two words which are being used in a common, non-subliminal way.

---

And when did evolutionary forces produce higher complexity?

You mean, other than the evidenced examples....of...for example...every living thing?  Unless, ofc, your "higher complexity" is a floating trashcan term.  Are human beings more "complex" than single celled organisms? If the answer you would provide is yes, then you've answered your question..if it's no, you've rendered your question meaningless.  

And for the third time, I am not saying that design is the only cause. I'm saying that it is the only known cause.

You keep saying it, but it's no more true now than it was the first time.  That's kind of the problem.  

There has been a thorough search, but obviously not all possibilities have been considered. So we literally have to investigate every possible explanation for any observation before we can say that we believe one stands out as best?

"We" wouldn't have to do that, a known explanation already stands out as the best explanation.  All available evidence poins to it without a single dissenting peice of evidence.   You might have to, though, since you'd rather not refer to the theory we have.  

And I've used positive evidence. We see intelligence creating information all the time. Scientists are constantly creating RNA sequences in the lab to guide CRISPR-CAS 9 machinery. If I go back to my university and create a functional protein by linking a series of amino acids in a desired way, then will I have given positive evidence that intelligence is an adequate cause?

Indeed, which isn't a problem forevolutionary theory - it's kind of the crowning achievement, and is only accomplished by leveraging evolutionary theory.  You can't really refer to their success without tacitly approving of the body of knowledge they use to accomplish it.  Are they achieving consistent results by accident, by leveraging an incorrect theory?  It's happened before, just figured some clarity was in order.  Did "god" do it exactly like modern synth did it?  What's the problem?

I believe that the designing intelligence is God, but that is simply not the type of claim that ID is making. There are ID proponents who do not believe this.

Actually, that -is- the claim that ID made, which is why it appeals to you..unfortunately, they failed to support that claim and ultimately discredited themselves by hanging their hats on an irreducible complexity that does not exist.  Meanwhile modern synth continues to collect evidence...there is still no evidence to the contrary, and it produces results like crispr, above, that you seem to be quite enamoured with.   I can't, for the life of me, figure out how it is you're trying to argue -against- modern synth by presenting a litany of corroborating points of data for the theory with which you have a religious objection to.........

You don't seem to understand that you are just asserting that the mechanism by which humans are more complex than a cell is evolution. 
If design is not the only known cause that is capable, then why has nobody proposed another one? If you are talking about natural selection acting on random mutations, we don't know how much information this can produce. This is why it is such a difficult question. We don't know how to quantify information. What we do know is that living systems (specifically eukaryotes) seem to have nearly infinite information contained within their genome. We also know that natural selection and mutation produce information at a nanoscopic rate.

And I don't think that you can just credit the crowning achievements of biologists to the theory of evolution. The fact is that the theory results in many similar predictions that one would make from design. We also don't know how quickly science would progress if people had design as their point of reference. It may be faster.

---

Again, I think that some of these scary features of our world that you are referring to can be considered mechanisms to ensure that the genetic integrity is maintained. For example, we have mechanisms to avoid bacterial infections. When we have a poor diet/ lifestyle, we are more susceptible to being overcome by these infections. They may be a mechanism to weed out those who are not living healthy lives.

Again, you don't seem to grasp how evolution works.

Do you think that poor diet/lifestyle has a genetic basis that is acted upon by natural selection?

It absolutely does, but that's not even what I was trying to convey. We are less susceptible to diseases and infections if we eat plant based foods and exercise. Therefore, those who do not live this healthy lifestyle are more likely to be removed by the purifying force that is infection. At least this is a possibility.