Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

Nobody said magic. Why is design magic in your mind? Did it take magic to design your car? Also it isn't that robust. What makes it robust in your eyes?

Then describe your "design" in detail that does not involve supernatural magic. Stop trying to poke holes in other theories and provide your theory. 

Or is your theory just "poof, god"? No further explanation needed.

How about He used various organic chemical reactions to develop amino acids and nucleotides. He then added them to a solution in sequence and ligated them together by heating them as they were added. Once He created the sequence of nucleotides, He created the enzymes necessary to maintain it. He then created the phospholipid bilayer, the golgi, the ER, the RER, the nucleus, and all these other things using chemical techniques and a plan. 

Obviously this is speculation, but the point is that intelligence directing the specific organization of the cell is more likely to me than it slowly forming over billions of years of reproduction.

---

So I'm seriously late to the game here... was busy celebrating a hallmark holiday. I only read the first and last page (cause I'm seriously lazy) but it seems to morph into a bigger battle than the OP was meant for. On one hand I noticed right off the bat that indeed some people were being a little harsh. I know that every time a religious person comes in here making threads its the same thing and we keep doing these battles until we are frustrated and mean to the new Xian but that really was a little harsh.

On the other hand I did roll my eyes and sigh after reading the post... can we just get a disclaimer banner that tells xians that we have been there argued that already?

Also just because I came here to comment on the actual subject I will say that the reason atheists make it seem like what we believe goes hand in hand with science is because thus far science agrees with us. You don't really see scientists that are religious because it breaks all common sense so they wouldn't be a very good scientist if they are just believing in things with no proof. And no sweetie the proof you have mentioned is not real scientific proof to any real scientists. Just because something is old doesn't mean it wasn't fake to begin with. (sorry if all this was discussed in the pages I didn't read... I reckon I should stop being lazy and go read them)

I know that these things have been argued before, but I think that they typically end in name calling, circular arguments, and loss of interest.

And I disagree that science agrees with you so far. There have been a number of recent discoveries (mainly the fine tuning of biological systems and the physical constants of the universe) that seem to have theistic implications. And every scientist believes things with no proof. In fact, the word proof is only allowable in mathematics or topics that use mathematics. Other than that, we deal with probabilities. There is virtually no such thing as proof in biology. This is another example of how the general public has a narrow schema of science. I have described no "proof" anywhere. And I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence (not the one in parenthases).

And it is ironic that you want to put a disclaimer to tell people not to use previously used arguments when you come here, read the first and last page, then admittedly make an argument that has already been argued.

---

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.

Mutations can be positive or negative or neutral (in that they don't have an immediate impact and may never have one at all).  Some mutations that are bad can also aid in survival, such as the sickle cell disease in African people which is believed to have helped them survive against the onslaught of malaria.  Other mutations may provide a benefit in one environment (say, a forest) and wind up being detrimental if the environment changes enough over time (to a grassland or desert).  DNA seems to change in every individual over time and is different with each new individual, so I don't think it preserves points in time very well for a population.  The fact that so many species have gone extinct indicates that neither the original code nor the mutated variations guarantee more than temporary success with very few exceptions (sharks and crocodiles come to mind).

Ok, I think there are a few things wrong with that. Mutations are almost always considered neutral (although I would argue that because virtually all the code is functional, that most of the "neutral" mutations are actually negative). The ones that are not considered neutral are almost always negative. The "positive" mutations are often those in which losing a function is advantageous to a novel environment. For example, if a population of pink fish moves to a kelp forest, then it would be beneficial for the gene that produces the pink pigment to be mutated to the point where it no longer functions. The fish would then turn a darker color and would blend in more with its surroundings. In addition, the epigenetic revolution has taught us that variations in phenotype need not be the result of variations in DNA sequence.