Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Angrboda]

Not the point.  It's an example of a non-intelligent process leading to specified information in your sense of the terms.  That makes your argument that intelligence and living systems are the only thing we know that produces this type of information incorrect.  And you still haven't responded to the checkers playing neural nets as a counter example as well. (See https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/12...ornby).pdf for an example antenna construction sequence.)

Then there's the following:

It actually is crucial to examining the analogy. These shape are predetermined as options. Life does not work that way. There is no predetermined shape/structure. Not only that, but every structure relies on probably hundreds (maybe even thousands by the time you consider the code necessary to produce the enzymes that manufacture it) of nucleotides. We aren't just adding structures at random. Any major structure would arise only after many mutations occurred in precise locations to the correct base within the context of a system capable of using this new structure once it somehow manages to form.

What does that have to do with the point being made? You're babbling about life and I'm addressing a key point in your argument. Intelligent design claims that intelligence is the only known force capable of producing complex specified information. These counter examples show that non-intelligent processes can do the same and therefore ID is wrong. And you've yet to coherently respond to a single one of the three examples.