Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[brewer]

Then describe your "design" in detail that does not involve supernatural magic. Stop trying to poke holes in other theories and provide your theory. 

Or is your theory just "poof, god"? No further explanation needed.

How about He used various organic chemical reactions to develop amino acids and nucleotides. He then added them to a solution in sequence and ligated them together by heating them as they were added. Once He created the sequence of nucleotides, He created the enzymes necessary to maintain it. He then created the phospholipid bilayer, the golgi, the ER, the RER, the nucleus, and all these other things using chemical techniques and a plan. 

Obviously this is speculation, but the point is that intelligence directing the specific organization of the cell is more likely to me than it slowly forming over billions of years of reproduction.

You must be studying biology/biochemistry as this seems to be the only area of science that you are putting forth for ID. Can you speak to the rest of the ID universe with the same or similar points/specificity?

Can you tell me how your speculation with out detail is "more likely"? Or is that your specific slant of speculation as well. Evolution has support, your's has woo. And why to you keep using the pronoun "He"?

Look, I really don't care. If you're more comfortable with some unseen magic biochemist then fine. I'm just not going to buy it. I'm OK with science and the fact that we may not have all of the specific answers. It only means that we don't have all of the specific answers "yet". 

BTW, be sure and thank god for cancer. The ability of a cell to loose apoptosis was pure genius.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't seem to understand that you are just asserting that the mechanism by which humans are more complex than a cell is evolution. 

That life evolves is a demonstrable fact, regardless of any religious objection you have regarding the theory of how that might be accomplished.  If we evolved because a cosmic tinkerer made us to do so, we still evolved.  As I said, if yes, you answer your own question.  The truth of the matter in this regard is simple...whether you think a genetic busybody was involved or not, the process is the same.  Tinkerfairies aren't a problem for evolution, but it doesn't require them, so...like I said, DOA.

OFC, up above, I'm operating on the assumption that you're arguing for ID, and not young earth cretinism... god played in the mud last week and here we are sort of shit. If -that's- what you actually believe...may as well drop all the ID nonsense and go back to pounding magic book.

If design is not the only known cause that is capable, then why has nobody proposed another one? If you are talking about natural selection acting on random mutations, we don't know how much information this can produce. This is why it is such a difficult question. We don't know how to quantify information. What we do know is that living systems (specifically eukaryotes) seem to have nearly infinite information contained within their genome. We also know that natural selection and mutation produce information at a nanoscopic rate.

When you say "nobody" you seem to be ignoring a hell of alot of people, all available evidence, and the most successful system for investigating our world that we've yet devised.  It's kind of silly....since you and I both know that the thing you're asking for exists - if you didn't know that, what position, exactly, are you arguing against? 

And I don't think that you can just credit the crowning achievements of biologists to the theory of evolution. The fact is that the theory results in many similar predictions that one would make from design. We also don't know how quickly science would progress if people had design as their point of reference. It may be faster.

OFC I can credit modern synth with accomplishments that were made directly on it's back?  Again, and as always, "design" isn't a problem for evolutionary theory, we do it all the time.  It's called artificial selection.  You'd prefer I at least considered that fairies played a hand...but they didn't.  We do know how quickly biology would progress when people refer to your god as an explanation......we did that for two thousand stagnant years.....

[LadyForCamus]

So I'm seriously late to the game here... was busy celebrating a hallmark holiday. I only read the first and last page (cause I'm seriously lazy) but it seems to morph into a bigger battle than the OP was meant for. On one hand I noticed right off the bat that indeed some people were being a little harsh. I know that every time a religious person comes in here making threads its the same thing and we keep doing these battles until we are frustrated and mean to the new Xian but that really was a little harsh.

On the other hand I did roll my eyes and sigh after reading the post... can we just get a disclaimer banner that tells xians that we have been there argued that already?

Also just because I came here to comment on the actual subject I will say that the reason atheists make it seem like what we believe goes hand in hand with science is because thus far science agrees with us. You don't really see scientists that are religious because it breaks all common sense so they wouldn't be a very good scientist if they are just believing in things with no proof. And no sweetie the proof you have mentioned is not real scientific proof to any real scientists. Just because something is old doesn't mean it wasn't fake to begin with. (sorry if all this was discussed in the pages I didn't read... I reckon I should stop being lazy and go read them)

Just so you know...this is like the 5th time we've been around and around with this guy over ID in the past year or so.  He's not new here, which I think can explain much of the scorn you are seeing here.  

[robvalue]

I couldn't care less if it's designed. If I did really think some stupid bastard was responsible for how life has ended up on this planet, the last thing I'd do is worship it. I'd start with a good few hours of pointing and laughing.

What exactly would the scientific community, or anyone, gain from the conclusion "It's designed"? Science is about results. You can't do shit with that. You certainly can't test for it, because no criteria are ever put forward. We need an objective way of distinguishing "designed" life from "non-designed".

Life is how it is, regardless of how it got here. And we're studying it just fine without needing a magic origin story.

---

Also...


Why are people spouting all this on an atheist (not even science) forum, instead of collecting their acclaim for finding damning problems in one of the most well established scientific theories of all time? It's like bragging about your winning lottery ticket on a windmill forum instead of cashing it.

[Astreja]

Nobody is arguing for young earth creationism.

Quite frankly, I think all  flavours of creationism, from all belief systems, are crap. YEC is merely the worst of the worst.

I am not in the least bit amused by people who just assert there has to be some sort of intelligent agent running the show, but cannot produce any actual evidence for it.  Even more ludicrous are the excuses that creationism proponents use to explain the existence of the creator itself (usually something along the lines of "the creator is eternal," or some other nonsense).

I just get frustrated by atheists who think that they are automatically highly versed in science and intellect just because they are atheists. And you guys are proving my point with these posts: when you don't want to address the argument you just start insulting me. I just want you guys to realize that the theory of evolution (at least the concept of common descent from one ancestor) is not as robust as you think it is.

We have addressed the argument -- multiple times.  At this point, AAA, you've fucking earned the insults you've been receiving.

I'll stick with evolution, thanks.  Much more robust than the Talking Snake™ Hypothesis.

[AAA]

I know that these things have been argued before, but I think that they typically end in name calling, circular arguments, and loss of interest.

And I disagree that science agrees with you so far. There have been a number of recent discoveries (mainly the fine tuning of biological systems and the physical constants of the universe) that seem to have theistic implications. And every scientist believes things with no proof. In fact, the word proof is only allowable in mathematics or topics that use mathematics. Other than that, we deal with probabilities. There is virtually no such thing as proof in biology. This is another example of how the general public has a narrow schema of science. I have described no "proof" anywhere. And I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence (not the one in parenthases).

And it is ironic that you want to put a disclaimer to tell people not to use previously used arguments when you come here, read the first and last page, then admittedly make an argument that has already been argued.

The arguments can go either way but I've noticed that on this site the atheists usually don't get hostile unless the Xian does first. Facebook and that sort of thing is just horrible but here we have some pretty good civil debates which is why I was surprised they started in on you right away with the cursing and hostile attitude. We have also been harassed by some pretty mean xians lately so the reaction from them might have rubbed off on you. I know we have a few xians on the site that everyone gets along with and we have pretty good discussions.

The last sentence I was referencing the bible. Xians kinda lug that around and I saw a few mentions of it on this thread. I do like that this is about science though. I was saying my comments despite reading the rest because what I was saying didn't pertain to the convo that had evolved from the main subject so I was making it known that it wouldn't factor in the new conversation. I have read a few more pages since my first post but I got realllly really bored because like someone mentioned being atheist doesn't mean we are into science. I mean I put science first but I have no interest in reading about cells and biology being something that isn't 'proof'. I'm sorry but while I know that our understanding of science evolves with our discoveries I can't agree that biology is not proof. There are still a lot of things humans don't know but the science is still out there. We are limited by our own minds and will eventually find it all. I'm pretty sure the whole point of science is to NOT believe something without evidence. We have had so much 'evidence' come up over the last 100 years it's not even funny and we aren't done yet. We didn't develop math we just worked out a way for us to understand it. That is what science is doing. Yet still I see no reason to think any theist claims are real.

Well if you were to give a presentation on a biological study, and you said that "my results prove...." you would frustrate pretty much everyone in the room and would lose all credibility instantly. And the whole point of science is to understand aspects of the natural world by appealing to a method that intends to reduce the bias of the investigator.

---

Nobody is arguing for young earth creationism.

Quite frankly, I think all  flavours of creationism, from all belief systems, are crap. YEC is merely the worst of the worst.

I am not in the least bit amused by people who just assert there has to be some sort of intelligent agent running the show, but cannot produce any actual evidence for it.  Even more ludicrous are the excuses that creationism proponents use to explain the existence of the creator itself (usually something along the lines of "the creator is eternal," or some other nonsense).

I just get frustrated by atheists who think that they are automatically highly versed in science and intellect just because they are atheists. And you guys are proving my point with these posts: when you don't want to address the argument you just start insulting me. I just want you guys to realize that the theory of evolution (at least the concept of common descent from one ancestor) is not as robust as you think it is.

We have addressed the argument -- multiple times.  At this point, AAA, you've fucking earned the insults you've been receiving.

I'll stick with evolution, thanks.  Much more robust than the Talking Snake™ Hypothesis.

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world. 
And I think the insulting and hostile nature of atheists is one of the huge turn offs for people, and one of the reasons that people do not want to see an atheist in political power.

[Astreja]

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world.

I don't believe you.  Show that there *is* an agent, rather than spouting unsubstantiated arguments from incredulity.

[AAA]

I couldn't care less if it's designed. If I did really think some stupid bastard was responsible for how life has ended up on this planet, the last thing I'd do is worship it. I'd start with a good few hours of pointing and laughing.

What exactly would the scientific community, or anyone, gain from the conclusion "It's designed"? Science is about results. You can't do shit with that. You certainly can't test for it, because no criteria are ever put forward. We need an objective way of distinguishing "designed" life from "non-designed".

Life is how it is, regardless of how it got here. And we're studying it just fine without needing a magic origin story.

---

Also...


Why are people spouting all this on an atheist (not even science) forum, instead of collecting their acclaim for finding damning problems in one of the most well established scientific theories of all time? It's like bragging about your winning lottery ticket on a windmill forum instead of cashing it.

1. If you are pointing and laughing, then you must not realize how impressive the organisms are on the molecular and cellular level. You don't care about the fact that most of your genes can be transcribed forward and backwards to produce different products. You don't care that your RNA can be differentially spliced or edited to produce functional variation. You don't care that your cells can release compounds in vesicles that can travel throughout the body to communicate with other cells. You don't care that you have a blood brain barrier to protect your most valuable organ from environmental stressors. You don't care about the intricate signal transduction pathways that allow you to respond to exquisitely precise stimuli. You don't care that your phenotype is flexible based on changes in transcription. You don't care that your billions of neurons have traveled so specific targets during their development all based largely on calcium concentration and the post synaptic membrane protein composition. You don't care that fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants to limit DNA damage, chelators to prevent metal toxicity, hormone like molecules to enhance cellular function, and common sugars and nutrients to provide energy. None of this matters to you. All you care about is that your esophagus is near your trachea.

2. The scientific community would have enhanced respect for biological systems. They would not come up with ridiculous theories like neutral constructive evolution to explain away RNA editing machinery. Instead, they would understand that RNA editing has a function (namely to expand the information contained in a given DNA sequence). Nobody would have predicted junk DNA (one of the worst scientific predictions of all time). The conclusion that plant foods are better for us would have come much sooner as well. 

3. Why is design magic to you? Did it take magic to design your laptop? Things are designed all the time without magic.

[RoadRunner79]

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world.

I don't believe you.  Show that there *is* an agent, rather than spouting unsubstantiated arguments from incredulity.

Are you saying, that making an inference is an argument from incredulity?  How would you categorize the inferences made in light of evolution then?

[AAA]

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world.

I don't believe you.  Show that there *is* an agent, rather than spouting unsubstantiated arguments from incredulity.

What would convince you of a designing intelligence? If God spoke to you right now, you would accept that you were hallucinating rather than deviate from your bais.