Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[robvalue]

"Processes are highly specific"?

"Functional DNA"?

This is exactly the sort of meaningless jargon I was talking about. This is not science. Can you produce definitions for these that are objective and falsifiable? Because if I can't use them to show that actually a particular life form isn't designed, then all they are is confirmation bias or tautologies.

The inherent problem here is a lack of data. We need examples of designed life, and non designed life. We then examine both to find the differences, and build a predictive model to tell them apart. We test the model on new data to see how good it is. This is how science works.

But of course, since "designed life" isn't even well-defined, we don't have any examples of either. So we can't get any data to even consider making a model with.

You say you care about the scientific method, but ID does not use it. It doesn't even come close to using it. All it is doing is examining life to look for ways that make it seem designed. That is all.

---

Let's be clear: I'm not claiming life isn't designed.

In fact, like the "God" question, that claim wouldn't be coherent until I even know what it means to be "designed' in the first place.

What we do know is that evolution happens, and it doesn't require guidance outside of natural selection. If there was any design involved, it happened way before humans evolved.

Seriously AAA, do you think that humans didn't evolve from other apes? Is that your position? I'm not sure if you don't even know your position, or you won't tell us out of embarrassment.