Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[RoadRunner79]

---

    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.

Ok... I agree.  Admittedly, I wasn't following much prior to my entry into the thread, so I cannot comment, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this.

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.

Ok... but I don't think that given something which we have not seen, that we cannot make an inference as to a cause sufficient to produce the effect.   Given that an intelligent cause more closely resembles what is seen, rather than an unguided cause, I do think that it is more reasonable move towards an intelligent cause (albeit with capabilities beyond our experience) rather than the other way.  Similarly, if a force is required to be sufficient for the effect unlike we have ever seen, rather than pose a known but insufficient cause, I think that reason demands we posit a force greater than what is known (even if what we know about it is limited).

I do think that you are confusing falsification of the theory of I.D. with relying on the inadequacy of evolution and abiogenesis.  Falsification does rely on the things that can falsify the claim; to not be true.  It is part of the nature and power of the ideology.  However the claims of intelligent design are not just about the inadequacy of those other things you mentioned.   Showing those mechanisms to be false, does not mean that it is intelligently designed (according to the theory).  And contrary to your prior claim, the theory of intelligent design does look to pinpoint characteristics, which are evident of design.  That is specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and fine tuning.   See this link for more:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#tautol  Natural forces produce effects that are highly specified, but not very complex.   Chance produces, results that may be complex, but are not specified.  To achieve something which is complex and specified with a large enough search space, requires choice especially within a restricted time frame.

There is a reason why many biologist and astronomers mention the appearance of design in nature...   Why is it so crazy, to think that among these many divergent examples, that they likely are designed?   I.D. looks to put a mathematical model and testable system in place to this instinct of design.  I think that those who oppose need to make some positive claims, to why we should ignore that which appears evident.