Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

And I think it is interesting that you actually believe that infinite complexity can arise through evolutionary mechanisms. If you accept that premise, then anything capable of change must be capable of infinite complexity.

Sure....whats the problem?  What limits it, impose some boundaries?

Well for one, time limits it. We don't know how many replication events there have been, but as we continue to unveil new layers of complexity, we should be less confident that there have been enough. Also, I think the mechanism is inherently unlikely to produce new information. Changing sequence doesn't add nucleotides to the system. The only way to do that is to have a duplication event or a retrotransposon replication and reentry event. From there, the sequences must mutate slightly. If they mutate too much, then they will lose function (at least this is what is virtually always observed). That, coupled with the fact that mutation frequency is so low seems to make the whole mechanism questionable.

---

largely because the scientific community is largely biased toward materialism.

Yes, the scientific community is biased toward things that can be verified, tested, falsified. Not sure why you would think otherwise?

As soon as someone is able to develop a method to demonstrate that the non-material exists, there would be interest in the scientific community.

Well conceptual ideas are immaterial, even if they are (and i do believe they are) the product of our physical neural setup. The laws of mathematics are not material. And the ID community is trying to develop a mechanism to discern if something was designed. As some people (at least one person) on this thread has addressed, we do not know enough about the quantitative nature of the variable (information) in order to draw specific empirical conclusions. However, like many other scientific disciplines, we can draw general preliminary conclusions based on the qualitative nature of the variable. Just as the theory of evolution cannot quantify the necessary variables to conclude a probability of its truth, neither can design (yet). Like any historical claim, just because we weren't there does not mean that we can't use our evidence to try to narrow the gap associated with our speculations.