Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Mister Agenda]

So we have what humans make, which is a product of intelligent design. And we have some other things, not made by humans, which have some similarities to things humans make. And the argument boils down to 'if things humans make are the product of intelligent design, these other things MUST also be a product of intelligent design.'

Without knowing anything at all about the 'other things' being talked about, we've got a hasty generalization fallacy.

Not really. We have a feature in something that humans did not make. We humans have produced this feature repeatedly with the input of intelligence. No other cause has stood up to scrutiny, which leaves intelligence as the only known cause for the feature. It also isn't that they MUST be the product of design. That was never part of the argument. We may find a better explanation tomorrow.

Really. And that's before even getting into the 'other things' being living organisms.

That the 'other cause' (evolution by heritable variation and natural selection) hasn't stood up to scrutiny is false given any reasonable assessment of scrutiny, given 150 years of people trying to prove it wrong and that there's a Nobel waiting for anyone who can find a better explanation that's going unclaimed. Intelligent Design on the other hand has fallen apart at every point where proponents have claimed 'irreducible complexity'. I'll give them this: they proposed a testable hypothesis. Too bad for them that the hypothesis fails every time it's tested. And at this point, any 'better explanation' that may turn up tomorrow will have to explain all the evidence that led us to conclude that natural selection acting on heritable variation is the explanation.