Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Tonus]

I'm not so sure that is exactly what Dembski and Behe are saying. I think they are saying that if something looks designed and there is no satisfactory competing explanation, then design should be the default position.

I don't think that the position they take on the matter has any effect on the science since scientists are going to search for answers because they can't take the default position for granted.  Much of the early work of scientists --work that was groundbreaking and brilliant and the foundation for much of what we know today-- was done by religious people who likely had no doubt that God existed and that nature was His work.  That they did not find Him anywhere was of no consequence, they were learning things and making progress and building a world full of technological marvels.  If the scientists of today believe in God or not, it should not stop them from finding answers to questions and continuing to increase our knowledge.  And if God CAN be found, there's no reason they wouldn't find him regardless of which position they took on the matter.

Dembski and Behe are determined to insert God into the base of knowledge that has been gained, but they don't seem to be looking for God as much as they seem to be hoping that they can find some dead end where we would have to confirm that a conscious and determined intellect was required.  In the same way that 'science can never find a supernatural god', we are likely never to reach a definitive end-point in our knowledge where we could say for certain that we had run out of options.  Their approach seems, er... designed to keep certain ideas alive and certain questions unanswered by science.  It strikes me as a very unsatisfying way to 'know' something.