Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

ID does demonstrate what we've learned. It is based mainly on our knowledge of biological systems and finely tuned laws of physics. Actual mechanisms are something that no origin of life theory can produce. Possible mechanisms are the best we will ever get, and I believe that ID stands alone. After all, intelligent input has been the only way we have ever gotten RNA and DNA sequences to do what we want.

I'm curious as to why you think this matters at all? Yes, you're right: interfering with DNA is the only way we can get DNA to do what we want. That's because DNA doesn't take our wants into account when it forms, not because intelligence is required for DNA to do stuff. Did you seriously not consider this at all? We know that DNA arises naturally, and if your argument here is that you believe DNA requires an intelligent designer, because DNA only does what intelligent entities want it to do via intelligent input, then your position is entirely circular.

There are predictions. ID proponents predicted functional DNA while others predicted junk. ID proponents consistently predict that biological processes are highly specific and not based in randomness, and this is consistently being shown to be correct.

Would you care to define what those terms mean, such that we can actually check that for ourselves, instead of just proclaiming they're correct?

Because I'll probably have some news for you, there.

DNA has not been demonstrated to arise naturally. It comes from pre-existing DNA in every observed instance, unless you are going to give me something about how nucleotides have been found. This is not the same as DNA. They must still be linked into a functional sequence, and have enzymes and a translation system for it to be functional. And you came late, us getting DNA to do what we want to (by inputting sequence) is evidence that intelligence is capable of leading to DNA. This by itself is not reason to believe that it is the only cause capable. You'll have to read the rest if you want.

What terms would you like me to define? It seems to be a defense mechanism by members of this thread to demand definitions, complain that they are not good enough for them, and dismiss the argument. Rather than defining these terms (which I can attempt to do if you want), would you like me to send you links to some peer-reviewed articles that I believe illustrate the concept of highly specific biological processes that do not rely on randomness. I can also give you plenty of articles related to the "junk" sequence functions if that's the part you are concerned about.