Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Angrboda]

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

    You want him to eliminate the unknown now....



The argument from ignorance, is assuming ones position, until it is shown to be false.  (which I might add, appears to be what your are doing).  It is a form of shifting the burden of proof.

It also includes the reverse, arguing that something is false until proven true, which is what he's doing.

I.D. does give positive reasons, why choice; and therefore an intelligent designer better explains the evidence.  It is not just, we don't know, therefore it must be designed!  It is relying on what we do know to make an inference.

In giving those reasons one is postulating something that hasn't been seen. We do not have sufficient intelligence to design a life form. So what you must mean are that the effects seen in the operation of our intelligence are in identifiable ways the same as the effects produced in a cell. You don't have a consistent, methodical way for pinpointing that, either. You have no way of identifying that an artifact was the process of design from the description of the artifact alone. So your positive evidence turns out to be no evidence at all. Your positive evidence turns out to be a bluff. Moreover the inference to design is relying on the inadequacy of evolution and abiogenesis to explain things as the key piece of evidence supporting the inference to design. That's not positive evidence either.