Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Asmodee]

ID does not make a supernatural claim. Intelligence needs not be supernatural. I would agree with you that trying to identify the designer is not a scientific endeavor.

That is a cop-out and, once again, not quite honest.  ID absolutely makes a supernatural claim.  As I have pointed out, ID IS creationism.  This is indisputable fact.  If you care to dispute it I'm sure I can link you to the transcript for the Dover v Kitzmiller case where they prove, beyond any doubt, that the flagship book created to introduce ID, the book that introduced the very concept for the first time, the book which was designed to be the initial introduction to ID, started out as a creationist book which changed because the courts ruled that creationism couldn't be taught in schools.  And that ID does not identify the designer is yet another lie.  They never outright say God did it, but that is absolutely the implication and that was absolutely the motivation behind the inception of intelligent design.  This IS Christian creationism and Christian creationism DOES name the designer.

Moreover, science can be defined as appealing to only undirected processes for answers, but that would render anthropology, archaeology, forensic science, and the search for extraterrestrial inteliigence (SETI) unscientific as well (the ideas for this sentence were largely from Meyer's book so as not to plagiarize). Similarly, you must ask if you want science to truly seek truth. If you do, then why should you start off with the notion that certain ideas cannot be considered, even if they are soundly based in the method of comparing competing hypothesis (which is not merely a Sherlock Holmes approach).

Science does not "seek truth".  There are no "truths" in science.  Science seeks to explain things, but never claims to have "the" answer.

This whole paragraph is riddled with deception.  Who says science has anything to do with "only undirected processes"?  Nobody made that claim.  That's not part of the definition of science.  Science is the study of "the natural", not "the undirected".  I'm not sure what book you're talking about

Also, it's not that the supernatural "cannot be considered".  That is a completely dishonest assessment.  It's that science has to give "only natural explanations".  Scientists can and have investigated, thus "considered", supernatural claims.  There have been many tests of psychic, haunting and other supernatural claims.  Supernatural claims can be considered, but supernatural explanations cannot be given.

And the Holmes reference was for the notion that, if you dismiss the impossible (evolution) then whatever is left, however improbable, is your answer.  You can prove evolution wrong all day long.  That only proves ID correct if you're Sherlock Holmes.  It doesn't work that way in the real world.  Thus "irreducible complexity", even if it were a real thing, does not "show design", it just disputes evolution.

And I've already addressed the fact that religious scientists have a bias, but so do nonreligious scientists. But that doesn't present us from understanding biological systems or doing good science. In fact, because we have such an obvious bias, we must be more careful. Appealing to those statistics is a good way to avoid the actual arguments though.

Another dishonesty.  "It's a problem for both sides".  Those words were actually spoken at the Dover trial.  And perhaps it's true, to an extent.  But all of science doesn't fall apart of God is real.  All of literal creationism does fall apart of evolution is real.  This is an attempt to put science and religion on equal ground.  A process of discovery that takes us where the data says to go is not "equal" to a rigid set of beliefs which must be held at any cost when it comes to "bias".  And there are more religious scientists who accept evolution than there are religious scientists who do not, and almost no nonreligious scientists who do not.  In this case the "bias" is clearly much stronger with the side which has to throw out their belief system if they're wrong.  Any given scientist, religious or not, would LOVE to be the guy who shoots down evolution, not because they care one way or another about evolution, but because they would instantly gain rock star status in the science world.

And I don't think that you can just dismiss the arguments that ID proponents make by asserting that it is a conspiracy theory set up by the religious to corrupt science.

That was not an assertion, it was a fact.  I have already identified the evidence for you, but if you're too afraid to look for it yourself you have but to ask and I will spoon feed it to you.  But it sure sounds a lot better for your argument if you call it an "assertion".  Again, not an entirely honest statement.

And, yes, if you can show that something someone is claiming is scientific is rooted in "not science", and then go on to have actual scientists examine it and dismiss it en-mass, you can absolutely dismiss the arguments.  

That would be like me claiming that Darwin devised his theory because he was mad at God and wanted to instill a natural worldview into society. When you actually read the ID literature (instead of reading about ID from a biased website, which I presume you did), you will see a clear outline of the theory.

I do not get my science information from web sites.  I listen to scientists whose job it is to understand the science.  You see, I am fully aware that I am not qualified to decide if a scientific theory is valid or not.  So I listen to what scientists have to say.  By the 2009 poll I mentioned earlier, I get my information from "97% of scientists in a related field".

And no, my argument is nothing like you just pulling a claim out of your ass.  You keep ignoring the fact that there is incontrovertible evidence that ID IS creationism.  They are one in the same.  ID IS CREATIONISM REBRANDED!  Sorry for the bold and caps, but you keep utterly ignoring this simple fact.  ID is not science because creationism is not science.  There are some scientists who back it, and they are very good at making bullshit sound "scientific".  The ID literature is biased!  Literature put out by ID proponents is, by its very nature, "pro ID", thus, biased.  And it's written by smart people who are paid to make it sound good.  So again, I refer to 97% of scientists in a related field BECAUSE THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!  It's called "scientific consensus" and it is reached, I believe, at an astounding 95%.  Evolution is 2% past that, ID is 2% TOTAL.

I watched a documentary a few years back, as I often do, about space.  In particular, it was about the solar wind.  I saw a scientist on it, I forget who now (Parker, maybe?), who was saying that he had been claiming the solar wind existed for years, but every time he brought it up he was laughed out of the room.  What did he do about it?  Did he argue it in forums?  Did he try to force it into schools?  Did whine like a little bitch that people weren't taking his science seriously?  No.  He waited.  He continued his work and he waited.  Then, lo and behold, the solar wind was detected and his theory was vindicated because THAT is how science works.  You take your science to SCIENTISTS, not to 9th graders.  Who takes their "science" directly to the people?  I'll give you a hint.  It's one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience to take it directly to the people and try to bypass scientists.  Science works slowly by nature.  Many, many brilliant scientists never live to see their work vindicated.  Einstein died thinking his "cosmological constant" to be his biggest blunder, but it is integral to science today.  If it's science then take it to scientists and it will come out as scientific.  That's how the process works.

So if ID is so scientific, why are you arguing with me about it?  Take your awesome discoveries to the scientists, show them what you have and work diligently on your "theory" until the data catches up with the science and it WILL BE vindicated, not by 9th graders, but by scientists.  THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS!!!  But ID proponents don't want to take it to scientists.  Of Pandas and People was not a scientific paper.  ID was introduced to high school children FIRST, bypassing scientists altogether and going straight to the schools.  I have no idea how you can maintain the belief that this is science.  Evolution went through over 100 years of testing before it even began to trickle into schools.  Yet the very first ID papers went, hot off the presses, directly into high schools as quickly as possible.  It didn't even bother to pretend to be science to scientists until AFTER it was ruled to not be science for school children.  THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

They address why it fits within the parameters of science, they use scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions, and they defend against common attacks like those that you have thrown out. The difference between ID and creationism is that creationism uses the Bible as a starting point and works to fit all data into that. ID merely supports the statement that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained as the product of intelligence.

ID IS CREATIONISM!  THE TWO ARE ONE AND THE SAME!  THE FIRST EVERY BOOK WRITTEN TO INTRODUCE ID ORIGINALLY SAID "CREATIONISTS" WHERE IT NOW SAYS "INTELLIGENT DESIGN PROPONENTS"!!!!!  You keep pretending this isn't true.  You keep completely ignoring that ID was designed by creationists salvaging a creation "science" book in the making to introduce it.  ID IS creationism.  The definition of "creation" and "intelligent design" in early and later drafts of the book which introduced ID IS THE SAME!  They used THE EXACT SAME definition for "intelligent design" that they had previously used for "creationism", WORD FOR WORD!  There IS NO difference between ID and creationism.  The book that introduce ID started out as a creationist book and IMMEDIATELY changed direction when creationism became outlawed in schools.  ID IS CREATIONISM!  It's a simple fucking concept and it is absolutely, undeniably true if you just bother to fucking think about it honestly for 20 damned seconds.

That being said, 97% of scientists address why ID DOES NOT fit within the parameters of science.  Science is very much a democracy.  My 97% beats your 2%.  That is how science works.  You see, you are getting your information from "ID literature", which is, "literature created in support of ID by people paid to make it sound plausible, including some scientists".  And you believe that you are qualified to make a determination whether it is or is not scientific.  You don't get to make that determination.  Neither do I.  Neither does any individual scientist, or even and group of scientists comprised of anything less than 95%, which is scientific consensus.  97% said it is not science, so it is not science.  You are the weakest link.  You've been voted off the island.  Hand in your apron and go home.  It's over and done with until you convince SCIENTISTS, not me, but SCIENTISTS that you're right.

And I'm glad that you are so far above the delusion that I clearly suffer from. And you're right, It goes both ways. I could sit back and say that you deny the scientific viability of the arguments because you don't want to acknowledge the implications. I could even go as far as to say that you are mad at God, that you fear His judgement, and that you would rather live in a world without being held morally accountable. How do you know it isn't you who has deceived yourself? You might have even deceived yourself to the point that you are willing to believe that everyone else has deceived themselves so that you can feel a personal sense of cognitive superiority. You said that you were not trying to be offensive, but I think that you have displayed a remarkable level of arrogance by implying that I am willingly ignorant of science.

Lol.  You have no idea how very funny this paragraph is.  Read your first 3 sentences, then read this last bit you wrote.  Let it sink in what's going on here.  Don't see it?  Your opening statement is a claim that ID does not identify the designer and has nothing to do with God, your closing statement is a suggestion that I don't accept ID because I don't like God, that accepting ID would somehow make me morally accountable to the very God that ID supposedly does not identify.

It's not arrogance and I am not implying that you are willingly ignorant.  I am outright stating that you are willingly ignorant, not because I'm being arrogant about it, but because you can't even keep your own deceptions straight from beginning to end of a single response.  But it's not me you're lying to, it's yourself.  You start out all high and mighty, trying to separate your "science" from your belief system, claiming they are utterly separate things, but by the end you forgot you needed to keep them separate and they merged back together again into the single thing that they have really always been, a way to lie to yourself.  That's where the "willful ignorance" part comes in.  You "willfully ignore" the fact that "ID", to you, absolutely means "creationism".  That's because ID is very much creationism.  I can prove that.  I'm not sure I mentioned that.[/b]