Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Angrboda]

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.

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.

How does it more closely resemble it? That's the $64,000 question that ID theorists have been attempting to answer and so far they've come up bankrupt. The concept of specified complexity is mathematically vacuous. Many ID advocates mouth the words specified complexity as if it referred to a real thing. This is based on Dembski's work in the field which has been repeatedly shown to be without merit. If you can't quantify in what way human design efforts resemble the putative design embodied in a cell, and you can't, then you have no basis for asserting that an intelligent cause "more closely resembles" what we see than an unguided cause. You're left with the uninformative "It looks designed."

 
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.

It looks to pinpoint such characteristics but it has yet to find them. "That is specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and fine tuning." And this is bollocks. Specified complexity is an empty term with no meaning; irreducible complexity isn't; and fine tuning has its own problems. And no, I haven't said a word about falsification.

  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.

I found your link totally irrelevant. You're just mouthing empty words whenever you talk about specified complexity; there is no such valid concept for detecting design.

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?

If it's just a belief not grounded ijn reason, then, knock yourself out. However Hume has noted that where an analogy departs from the target, the less reliable the analogy becomes. Likening what we find in nature to what we find in human design is so far removed from one another that the analogy is useless. What you have are subjective impressions, and they're as likely to be wrong at inferring design as they are to be right. To make an inference to design requires a reliable method for separating the one from the other because false positives are plentiful. So far no one has found such a method.

  I.D. looks to put a mathematical model and testable system in place to this instinct of design.

And so far it has failed to do so.

  I think that those who oppose need to make some positive claims, to why we should ignore that which appears evident.

Appearances are deceptive. We have plenty of examples of things that look designed but aren't. If the instinct is unreliable, why should I be pulled to task to try to disprove it? And we have the positive claim, in evolution. That you dissent from the majority of science is no skin off my nose.

If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II).