Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Angrboda]

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.

For the third time, human intelligence is not capable of producing the complexity seen in a cell. The complexity of the cell is the product of chemistry. A chemical system that is beyond the capacity of human designers to design. Since "intelligence" isn't a known cause of the complexity of the cell, you can only mean something else. That something else is spelled out in the terms complex, specified information. Complex information is ubiquitous. All systems produce 'information'. So it can't depend on it merely being complex information. And the term specified is vacuous, so that adds nothing to the equation.

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.

I'm not concluding that it is false, I'm concluding that it is an invalid argument for your conclusion. That isn't due to my ideological biases, that's due to the structure of your argument. If you don't like the fact that you have made an invalid argument, then get another god damned argument.

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.

I've been through this. The word function doesn't apply specifically to designed systems. The rain has a function in the hydrological cycle. Rocks on a beach sort themselves hydrologically; that's sequential information. None of the terms you've supplied apply exclusively to designed things, so by consequence you will have false positives. For an example, I'd give the checkers playing neural nets of Chelapilla and Fogel. (here)(See here for a complete exposition.)

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.

I don't give a flying fucking damn that you resent it. You're nothing but an evolution denier and evolution is established science. Your made up distinction between speculative and empirical science is just your ideological bias looking for a way to worm itself to your already formed conclusion. All science is a mix of both empirical observation and speculation.

And adequate for information. Sequential information that gives rise to function is this feature.

Already dealt with.

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.

All processes lead to 'information'. It's the kind of information that is at issue, and you haven't been able to specify the kind of information in a way that unambiguously leads to designing intelligence.