Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

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.

You don't understand that the information of DNA is based on the chemical properties of the bases, the mRNA sequence that results from the process, and the chemical properties of the amino acid building blocks. It's not that there is not information, there is chemistry. It is that there is information derived by the cell from chemical properties of the characters that make up a sequence. They are the same thing. And you're right. We cannot produce cells yet. But information can (when accompanied by the appropriate enzymes (which themselves are the result of DNA sequence being interpreted by preceding enzymes)). Here's what you seem to be saying now: "cells are too complex to be produced by intelligence. Therefore design is not a tenable argument and we must appeal to an undirected process to explain it."

And you cannot just assert that all systems exert complex information. That is a ridiculous assertion and you know it. You have to address the fact that undirected processes have never been observed to produce a sequence of characters capable of accomplishing a specific function. You complain about my definition of information, then basically go on to define information as some ubiquitous feature present in everything. DNA is what it is. You can object to it being defined as irregular sequential information that accomplishes a specific purpose if you want, but then you would be disagreeing with every (this is one of the few times I feel comfortable using such an inclusive word as "every") scientist on either side of the debate. You then go on to tell me that I am denying science as though you have an understanding of biology that I don't.

Do you want to explain the term argument of ignorance to me then? Can we draw any conclusions on any topic that we do not know everything about (which ironically would be every topic), or would a conclusion just be a statement of ignorance? I'm having trouble understanding how any claim not rooted in empiricism can not be considered an argument from ignorance by you.

And evolution is an established science if you accept that the word evolution is merely referring to a change in gene frequencies over time. If you are going to try to tell me that it is established science that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and that this process has led to an increase in complexity and functionality of the genetic code, I will be disappointed. You already implied (you might have even actually stated) that you do not believe that there is a working definition of complexity or functionality, so I'm curious why you would accept that there is a process that can lead to it. If you don't think we have properly defined what it is we are trying to explain the origin of (functional DNA sequences), then why do you accept any conclusion for its origin?

You are honestly going to say that there should be no distinction made between empirical findings and speculation? It isn't all a mix, and scientists go to extreme lengths (at least they should) to distinguish between the two. If scientists all had the attitude that you describe, then the truth about the world would quickly be hidden behind a mask of confusion and conflicting speculation. I can find conflicting ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding the purpose of RNA editing machinery if you want. This is speculative science, and both sides make it clear. If we pretend this is empirical, then we must believe two directly contradictory ideas.

---

basically just clips of different atheists talking about religion. Many of the featured atheists such as a Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, and Bill Maher are not scientists even in a broad sense of the word.

Good doctor Isaac Asimov explained why in the forward to James Randi's book "Flim-Flam":

"Randi is one person who has the ability and the temperament for the job;—none better!
He has no academic credentials, and therefore no academic restrictions. He can call things as he sees them, and is not held back by professional politeness..."

I agree that academic credentials aren't overly important if your ideas have content. Just don't put those people under the title of science.