Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Chas]

Well that was about 10 assertions.

No, they are all backed by evidence.

More complex molecules are not the same as genomes.

They are building blocks.

You can't just assert that given chemicals, life will start.

I didn't actually assert that.

You not only have to form the molecules, but you must explain their sophisticated sequence that allows them to reproduce.

There exist self-replicating molecules - what's to explain?

It is not a given we are just constantly moving toward a state of higher complexity and functionality.

Who said it was? Not I.

And were you referring to the long term evolution experiment where the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize citrate? They already possessed the enzymes necessary to break it down, it's just that they could not take it in under aerobic conditions.

Where do you come by that bit of misinformation?

It could easily be explained by a degrading cell wall, which is not even entirely dependent on DNA for its proper replication. And I think natural selection limits the accumulating mutations. Your genome can only take so much mutation before it is rendered functionless.

You do not understand the Lenski experiment. Try again.

[Angrboda]

(emphasis mine)

These are radically different claims.  The first is true but unremarkable.  The second would be true if you'd actually shown other causes are insufficient, but you haven't done that.  All you've done is whine about improbabilities and use undefinable terms like "specified information."  Showing that the exact process of abiogenesis responsible for life on this planet is unknown doesn't advance the proposition of intelligent design.  It's just a fallacious argument.  The fact is that nobody has been able to create a filter that can reliably separate out those things that were designed from those that weren't designed.  In its absence, we have a bunch of arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity.  If this is the best that the ID movement can produce, it is a very poor showing.  More, because it's a possibility that humans evolved their ability to design things, you haven't even shown that design points to a non-natural process.  That's a complete failure for those hoping that design is the magic bullet that points to God.

You're right, the claim is that it is the only known cause, not that it is the only cause. I should have been more careful with that. Information is defined as that which is conveyed by a sequence of things. The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function.

And you have no way to define that rigorously. This is a backward definition. It implies design in the way you've formulated it, which makes it nothing more than begging the question. Can you use it in a sentence? Show how fairy rings do not contain specified information in a way that doesn't implicitly reference design.

Couple that with the fact that the sequence is highly irregular, and you start to see how intelligence is a good candidate.

This is mere complexity and is back to the argument that it couldn't arise by pure chance. Since evolutionary processes have already been demonstrated to produce greater complexity from simpler origins, it makes some form of evolutionary process an equally viable candidate.

This is why it is essential to compare the competing hypothesis for the origin of information. When the others fail, and only one remains, we can conclude that the remaining one is the only known cause. We can and should look for other causes, but that doesn't change the fact that only one possible explanation has been identified despite rigorous searching.

Rigorous searching doesn't change this from an argument from ignorance. It's unsound to conclude that the cause was intelligence until all possible alternative causes have been explored. Not just 'known' causes but all possible. This you've failed to do. That's why you have all this talk about known causes, instead of a positive argument for design. If you had a positive argument, you'd use it. Therefore an argument from ignorance is the only known argument for intelligent design.

And the intelligent design advocates have been working hard to develop methods of design detection. William Dembski has worked on this issue.

The same could be said for abiogenesis. It means little without any actual results. Despite "rigorous searching" no positive argument for design has been developed.

You're right that it doesn't necessarily point to God, and that is why the ID community does not attempt to identify the designer(s).

This is disingenuous twaddle. We all know your end game. You're not fooling anyone.

[Whateverist]

I can't believe you just OMGUS'd* non-Christian scientists over their lack of god belief.  You've identified no personal bias likely to distort their findings yet cast shade on them all gratuitously.  Worse, you seem to feel that dancing around your own easily identifiable bias some how inoculates the lot of you against any further occurrence of personal bias.  You give no reason for either finding non-Christian scientists biased or finding Christian scientists less biased.  I'd say this post of yours indicates your personal bias immunity theory is bunko.


*  http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?titl...d_You_Suck

Do you really think that non-religious scientists are unbiased? That is an unfortunate consequence of how science is portrayed. Many scientists are extremely biased when it comes to results that deal with worldview issues. For example, things like thiomersal being used in medicines, the extent to which obesity is genetic, and scientific questions with religious implications are all topics with which many scientists have already made up their mind. I didn't say that Christian scientists are less biased, I said that because their apparent bias is so obvious, they must be kept in check, while the other scientists whose biases are less obvious can go sort of undetected.

Last time I checked you're the only one throwing the claims around fast and loose. I never said any scientists are immune to bias. Since they're all human I'd assume the opposite. However I'm aware of no popularly held biases regarding origins which have the obvious empirical implications which belief in creation and an afterlife do. That is why so many believers who show up here immediately start slinging around NDE's so hopefully. No one is tempted by that kind of BS unless they've already signed up for god belief.

[Jesster]

[Pat Mustard]

<snipped a whole pile of bullshit>

Hey it's Junk Status, long time no see lad. What you been doing with yourself, still pretending to be getting an education? Still thinking you know more than Sweet Fanny Adams about anything?

---

Yes... in that there is no fucking evidence for your silly god which has ever been presented.

Science, you see, must also evaluate the lack of evidence for a position.

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

Well in order to be able to ascertain that nature shows evidence of design you have to show said evidence. The current amount of evidence you have provided for your beloved creatardism Junk Status is detailed below:



Yeah, Junk Status, you've got absolutely fucking nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Intelligence

Pretty much doa if you can't find it within yourself to say what we both know you mean, eh? So, "intelligence" is the only known cause of intelligence, as just one example of the phenomena you seek to explain.... in your estimation?

Works fine for evolution. What's the problem?

[Mr Greene]

1) Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Scientific data is used to assess the value of specific claims. Also to refute the utter BS spouted by ID muppets who haven't heard the result from Dover yet...

2) Life shows apparent "design" due to the bias of the human brain, this is merely an artifact of the observer, not an inherant property of life.

3) The Cell is formed by a phospholipid bilayer membrane, Phopholipids have hyrophilic heads and hyrophobic tails and thus form a double membrane in order to prevent water from contacting the tails. Pure mathmatical chemistry, nothing magical.

4) Protein chains have been produced in the lab from base compounds subjected to environmental conditions from the Hadean period.

[Astreja]

It's not an assertion that intelligence is the only known cause, that is true. Nobody knows of an adequate alternative, and intelligence is repeatedly observed to be adequate.

Personally I think that the cause of life is a non-sentient process, and that there's nothing particularly special about what we happen to be -- humans are one possible result of a chain of countless processes, but not necessarily the best result or even an important one.

If you do assume an intelligent agent you just create the same problem at an earlier stage.  Who {or more likely, what} created the creator?

[AAA]

You're right, the appearance of design might be an illusion, but I have not seen a compelling reason to think it to be so. In fact, the more I learn the more I think it may be genuine. We have those historical examples of times when things were not as they seemed to be, and that should keep us cautious and fair minded when evaluating the appearance of design. However, just because things aren't always as they appear does not mean that they are never as they appear.

I think it depends on how we approach it and what we think we're looking for.  If it's just highly-advanced beings who are not particularly compassionate then the design of things like harmful bacteria or viruses is not surprising (though it might be very disconcerting).  If it's a highly-advanced being who is the very hallmark of compassion, such things should trouble us because it's difficult to see where they fit in.

I understand that for a great many people, the idea that there must be a god is very compelling and makes intuitive sense.  But where we go from there must take into account everything we see in that design, including the stuff that might make us worry about the type of intellect behind it.  I'm cautious about accepting the notion of a highly-advanced --and unbelievably powerful-- being creating everything around us, because some of that stuff is very scary.

Again, I think that some of these scary features of our world that you are referring to can be considered mechanisms to ensure that the genetic integrity is maintained. For example, we have mechanisms to avoid bacterial infections. When we have a poor diet/ lifestyle, we are more susceptible to being overcome by these infections. They may be a mechanism to weed out those who are not living healthy lives.

---

It's not an assertion that intelligence is the only known cause, that is true. Nobody knows of an adequate alternative, and intelligence is repeatedly observed to be adequate.

Personally I think that the cause of life is a non-sentient process, and that there's nothing particularly special about what we happen to be -- humans are one possible result of a chain of countless processes, but not necessarily the best result or even an important one.

If you do assume an intelligent agent you just create the same problem at an earlier stage.  Who {or more likely, what} created the creator?

I know that it often follows from the atheist perspective that humans are not important, but the reality is that we are a very important species. We are the only species capable of impacting the world in such a dramatic way. We are changing conditions for all other species and hampering their ability to thrive. The minute we consider ourselves to be just another species is the minute that we will damage the world beyond repair.

[Chas]

Again, I think that some of these scary features of our world that you are referring to can be considered mechanisms to ensure that the genetic integrity is maintained. For example, we have mechanisms to avoid bacterial infections. When we have a poor diet/ lifestyle, we are more susceptible to being overcome by these infections. They may be a mechanism to weed out those who are not living healthy lives.

Again, you don't seem to grasp how evolution works.

Do you think that poor diet/lifestyle has a genetic basis that is acted upon by natural selection?