Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

The first part of your argument seems really shallow. I think you know that we are not saying that "it looks designed therefore it was". It is "despite thorough search for another cause, only intelligence is a known cause that can produce what we see in designed systems". It is not that we are just appealing to our initial intuitions. These conclusions come after careful studying of the systems and proposed explanations.

(emphasis mine)

But intelligence isn't a known cause for the type of complexity we see in the cell, so your argument can't be valid.  No human on earth has the intelligence to create something like the cell.  So you're just jerking off by saying that intelligence is an adequate cause for what we see in the cell.  (And I'll note that what you've stated isn't an argument for your conclusion.)  Even if properly stated, it's also still an argument from ignorance and fails on that count.

Your argument seems to be "because in the past we have seen apparent design turn out to be illusory, all apparent designs are illusory". 

No, my point is that if your procedure produces false positives, then it can't be reliably used to infer design.

And the functionality of the wing is the result of elaborate informational output by the cell.  Obviously the wing itself is not information, but I think it is impossible to argue that its functionality is not the result of information. And you say "For if it is even possible that specified information can arise natrually, it's no longer a flag for design." You seem to be suggesting that if it's possible that something arose without design, then it was not designed. This is illogical for several reasons.

No, I'm pointing out that if a particular property, specification, isn't exclusive to designed things, then it can't be used to determine whether the item was designed or not.  It provides no probative value for the inquiry under consideration.  If it being specified simply means that it was either designed or natural, if you can't rule out it being a possibility that the property has a natural cause, then it cannot be used to make an inference of design.

 Also, we have no good reason to assume that it can arise without the help of a designing intelligence. If you have a reason that you think it was can you provide it?

Doubling down on the mere possibility that feathered wings evolved will not save your argument.  But whatever.  It's telling that you have to deny established science to make your inferences work at all.

You say that abiogenesis is a significant possibility, but I think that's just wishful thinking. We don't have to assign probability to design either, because we know based on repeated experience that intelligence is adequate.

Adequate for what?  What exactly are you suggesting we are "seeing" that justifies this claim.  That's why I went through the laborious exercise that I did, to point out the need to be specific about what properties indicate design.  If you can't specify the properties which indicate design, then you've got nothing.  As pointed out, specified information, even with your vague definitions, simply doesn't work.

Intelligence is the only known cause of the information. The complexity of the cell is a product of information. Therefore intelligence is the only known cause that is capable of leading to cells. You can't just assert that something is an argument from ignorance and conclude that it is false. You are implying that there is a different explanation which we are currently ignorant of. That may be true, but we have no biochemical reason to think so. The only reason to think so is your own ideological bias.

And does it really produce false positives?  I might have missed it, but can you give examples of non-designed systems that have sequential information that leads to function? Otherwise, I think that the only way to state that it produces false positives would be to assert that living systems themselves were not designed and use that assertion to justify your rejection of the ID technique.

And I resent you telling me that I am denying established science for my inferences to work. I think you are confused on the empirical sciences and the speculative sciences. I disagree with the speculations of scientists often, but I don't think I've denied anything empirical.

And adequate for information. Sequential information that gives rise to function is this feature. When I said they were too vague, I meant too vague to assign probability to the likelihood of design. I do think, however, that the central tenant of the theory holds true from a qualitative and common sense perspective. There is  NO current theory capable of assigning probability to the likelihood of design or undirected development of a system. ID is actually closer to quantifying probability than any other origin of life theory that I am aware of. Until we have a theory that can do so, we must appeal to what makes the most sense in a qualitative fashion. We know that living systems contain information (Is this the part you disagree with?). We know of only one process capable of leading to information.

---

The problem with these algorithms is that the desired sequences (the ones that represent functionality and therefore evolution) are input beforehand by the people writing the algorithm. Without putting the desired sequences first, the simulation will not no what sequences to select for. If you do put them first, then you are no longer accurately simulating evolution, because it does not have that type of forward looking memory. 

You misunderstand.  I am not talking about simulations, I am referring to the algorithm that underlies evolution: imperfect replication and differential reproductive success.  

And I don't think I claimed that there hasn't been sufficient time, but I did claim that we do not know enough to assume that there was.

You claimed that we can't know if there was - I am merely pointing out that you therefor can't claim there wasn't.

I think you're right, I'm not understanding the point you are making. Do you think that imperfect replication and differential reproductive success can lead to essentially infinite complexity? Can it use forward looking memory to select for a sequence that will only lead to functionality 20 base changes down the road? You assume that there is a gradient of functionality going from none to extremely high with no major jumps.

---

Real peer review: a paper is submitted for publication in a reputable journal and immediately torn apart, atom by atom, by rival scientists looking for the slightest flaw so as to correct them and add to their scientific reputation.

IDiotic / cretinist peer review: a sermon is printed in a journal set up specifically to publish cretinist sermons. This leads to a group of wannabe ministers and preachers giving each other handjobs in a desperate bid to con the sheep into believing they have some scientific credibility. The closest the process might ever get to real peer review is making sure that the sermons are as close to the predetermined conclusion (that the bible/kerrang is revealed truth) as possible.

It's cargo cult science, by people who have a vested interest in making you think they actually have merit. Don't feed them your time, and especially not your money.

That's actually sort of sad that you have that view of science. In my biological literature class, my professor selected published articles that had actually been through the real peer-review process that had serious flaws slip through. It was our job to find the flaws. Yes the goal is to find flaws, but it is more difficult than you think to detect them considering that the peer-reviewer does not know the study nearly as well the authors. Also, as a reviewer, it is impossible to ensure that the numbers reported by the authors are accurate. They did not collect the data, and we rely on the desire of all scientists not to corrupt the process.