Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

You can't just assert that evolution is an adequate cause. he

How much information per generation does natural selection coupled with mutation produce? How many generations have there been? How much information is contained by the genome. Until we know the answer to all three of these we will not know if natural selection+mutation is adequate. 

The algorithm is sufficient to accomplish what we see.  Calculate the number of organisms and reproduction events that have existed in the last 3,000,000,000 years (they are staggeringly large numbers) and you will see that there has been plenty of room for the amount of evolution we observe.

And you don't think that lifestyle impacts our genetic output? That's like the whole point of epigenetics. Environmental stimuli lead to heritable changes in transcription. Eating meat is not a more efficient means of nutrition. Nut consumption has a much higher assimilation efficiency than meat.

Tell that to the Inuit. Pound for pound, there is far more nutrition in meat than in plant matter.

Also, you have to consider that the meat itself has disseminated most of the energy of the primary producers when it was alive.

That is a ludicrously incorrect statement.  Pound for pound, there is far more energy content in meat than in plant matter.

Therefore, skipping the middle man is a much more efficient way to eat from an energy perspective.

See above.

You can't just assert that algorithms show it to be adequate. And I know that there have been a lot of reproductive opportunities, but we do not know how to accurately estimate the number. 

And when you say "there is far more nutrition in meat", you are showing that you don't understand what nutrition means. There are more calories, but you are ignoring the thousands of phytochemicals that we need to get from plant foods. Also, we need sugars, vitamins, minerals that are much more concentrated in plant foods. 

And when you say that is a ludicrously incorrect statement, you must be ignoring how energy moves through trophic levels. When we are eating meat, we are acting as secondary consumers. The primary consumer doesn't consume all the available energy from the producer. They don't assimilate all of the energy that they consume. Then we, as secondary consumers, have the same inefficiency. If we ate plants, we are acting as primary consumers and cutting out the wasted energy of the middle man.

---

Instead all he does is try to attack evolution,

And if that's all he wants to do, he's in the wrong place.  Just do the research showing how and where the theory fails, write a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal, and watch all of the other dominoes fall.  If the scientific method can be used to lead us to a designer, then it's imperative that those who believe that hypothesis use it to do so-- it would be a monumental discovery with wide-ranging effects for everyone.

I can appeal to peer-reviewed articles if you want. Here are some direct quotes that you may find interesting related to evolution.

"Indeed the eukaryotic genome, rather than being viewed as islands of protein coding genes in an expanding sea of evolutionary junk, may be better thought of as an RNA machine, which expresses a large repetoire of developmentally regulated ncRNAs that are central to the genetic and epigenetic processes that orchestrate the exquisitely precise patterns of gene expression during the ontogeny of multicellular organisms."

Mattick J.S., et al.,2009. RNA regulation of epigenetic processes. BioEssays 31; 51-59.

"The magnitude of the task involved in wiring the nervous system is staggering. In adult humans, each of over a trillion neurons make connection with, on average, over a thousand target cells, in an intricate circuit whose precise pattern is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system."

Tessier-Lavigne, M., Goodman, C.S., 1996. The molecular biology of axon guidance. Science 274(5290): 1123-33.

Describing sequence comparisons between DNA repair enzymes: "Preliminary comparisons of this kind immediately made it clear that the repair machinery shows considerable variability, in terms of the present and absent genes, even in relatively close bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Hameophilus influenza."

Aravind, L., Walker D.R., Koonin, E.V., 1999. Conserved domains in DNA repair proteins and evolution of repair systems. Nucleic acids res. 27(5): 1223-42.