Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Esquilax]

But the other thing is this, and this is sort of the meta-problem with intelligent design that kinda shows off the fundamental presupposition with the idea: so, you believe that an intelligent designer is the only possible explanation that adequately accounts for the complexity of life. Okay, let's go with that. What is that designer like? And where did it come from?

Is it a complex designer? A being capable of engineering DNA on a grand scale, with wants and purposes for that design? Wouldn't it then need a designer of its own, since the only thing capable of explaining complex information is intelligence? There's only a few options that can get through this dilemma: either you're left with an infinite regress of intelligent designers designing each other, which is absurd and doesn't leave any form of god any kind of advantage, or at some point the intelligent life which designed our life would have to have arisen naturally. In which case ID proponents also believe that complex systems can arise naturally... they've just arbitrarily shifted it back however many steps because they really want our life to be designed.

Now, they could also posit the supernatural, beyond time, misapplication of cosmology woo woo sort of designer, but if they did that, suddenly all those arguments about what is observable and evident have gone out the window, showing off that this whole endeavor was one big post hoc rationalization to begin with. There's really no way for an ID guy to justify positing a designer in any level of detail without either demolishing the argument or showcasing the assumed conclusion the whole edifice has been built around.

This is, I suspect, the main reason why speculations on the identity of the designer are suspiciously absent. Aside from the fact that the entire damn field is just rebranded creationism, that is. The conclusion simply is not tenable within reality, so the only option left is to just not talk about it.