Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[robvalue]

I will admit that science is biased against things that are not science, such as made-up bullcrap, elastic words that mean whatever the person wants them to mean at any given time, conclusions based solely on observation without any testing, and false dichotomies between the Theory of Evolution and "God Designer did it by magic not magic, in some unspecified way at some unspecified point, which means evolution doesn't really happen but instead it.... erm..."

[Simon Moon]

largely because the scientific community is largely biased toward materialism.

Yes, the scientific community is biased toward things that can be verified, tested, falsified. Not sure why you would think otherwise?

As soon as someone is able to develop a method to demonstrate that the non-material exists, there would be interest in the scientific community.

[The Grand Nudger]

Biased, lol, they aren't biased, they're limited.  A thermometer measures temperature...not the presence of ghosts.  Until some interested individual comes up with a spiritometer science will not, and cannot, attribute cause or correlation to magical forces. Be that guy AAA, invent that machine.....but for the love of christ, stop bitching about it. It's your failure, it's the failure of the ghostly explanation to produce the minds and the means. It's not a failure of the method, the system, or anyone else. Everytime you whine about conspiratorial biases, it only highlights that failure...and frankly...you're wasting everyone's time in doing so, not the least of which your own.

[robvalue]

Science is essentially about learning something. We gather information, we hypothesise, we test, we improve, and ultimately we seek to show we've understood how something works.

ID doesn't do any of this. It doesn't demonstrate that we've learned anything at all. It has no way of showing it. There are no mechanisms. No models. No predictions. No results. No tests. It's not science. It's pseudo-science, which it will always be, because it's bullshit.

Either you care about the scientific method, or you don't. And if you don't, you've got a hell of a case to make as to why anyone should take you seriously.

[Whateverist]

I'm an atheist cuz it is the most scientifical position available to man. *crosses fingers*

[AAA]

I think you're right, I'm not understanding the point you are making.

My point is that you are trying to sneak "intention" into the discussion.   Evolution is a mindless algorithm.

Do you think that imperfect replication and differential reproductive success can lead to essentially infinite complexity?

There is no limit to the accumulation of changes.  Complexity is unbounded.

Can it use forward looking memory to select for a sequence that will only lead to functionality 20 base changes down the road?

No, because that is not how it works.  Evolution is a blind, purposeless process.

You assume that there is a gradient of functionality going from none to extremely high with no major jumps.

I have not actually made that claim.  Please define what you mean by functionality.
Overall, evolution is gradual.  If you zoom in on the time scale, there will be 'jumps' - just not often large ones.

I understand that evolution is a mindless process, but I think it is clear that the processes that allow a living system to function exhibit intention. This does not necessarily mean that evolution could not lead to it, but if I was talking about intention, then I'm sure this is how I meant it. 

And I think it is interesting that you actually believe that infinite complexity can arise through evolutionary mechanisms. If you accept that premise, then anything capable of change must be capable of infinite complexity.

We agree that it can't use forward looking memory. Do you deny that forward looking memory was ever necessary? If so, then it seems like you must believe that there is a gradient of functionality (I'll define it simply as accomplishing a specific task) that can be conveyed by DNA sequences changing one base at a time?

[The Grand Nudger]

And I think it is interesting that you actually believe that infinite complexity can arise through evolutionary mechanisms. If you accept that premise, then anything capable of change must be capable of infinite complexity.

Sure....whats the problem? What limits it, impose some boundaries?

[AAA]

Science is essentially about learning something. We gather information, we hypothesise, we test, we improve, and ultimately we seek to show we've understood how something works.

ID doesn't do any of this. It doesn't demonstrate that we've learned anything at all. It has no way of showing it. There are no mechanisms. No models. No predictions. No results. No tests. It's not science. It's pseudo-science, which it will always be, because it's bullshit.

Either you care about the scientific method, or you don't. And if you don't, you've got a hell of a case to make as to why anyone should take you seriously.

 I care very deeply about the scientific method. That's one reason that I started this post. I wanted to get people's opinions on if they think people hiding under the mask of science (which is something I'm not trying to do) are corrupting the most valuable process for unraveling truth. 

ID does demonstrate what we've learned. It is based mainly on our knowledge of biological systems and finely tuned laws of physics. Actual mechanisms are something that no origin of life theory can produce. Possible mechanisms are the best we will ever get, and I believe that ID stands alone. After all, intelligent input has been the only way we have ever gotten RNA and DNA sequences to do what we want. There are predictions. ID proponents predicted functional DNA while others predicted junk. ID proponents consistently predict that biological processes are highly specific and not based in randomness, and this is consistently being shown to be correct. There are tests. There are ID inspired scientists working to address scientifically relevant questions. If nothing else, it increases the thought diversity among researchers, which is something science cannot survive without.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stop.  You're embarrassing yourself.

[AAA]

And I think it is interesting that you actually believe that infinite complexity can arise through evolutionary mechanisms. If you accept that premise, then anything capable of change must be capable of infinite complexity.

Sure....whats the problem?  What limits it, impose some boundaries?

Well for one, time limits it. We don't know how many replication events there have been, but as we continue to unveil new layers of complexity, we should be less confident that there have been enough. Also, I think the mechanism is inherently unlikely to produce new information. Changing sequence doesn't add nucleotides to the system. The only way to do that is to have a duplication event or a retrotransposon replication and reentry event. From there, the sequences must mutate slightly. If they mutate too much, then they will lose function (at least this is what is virtually always observed). That, coupled with the fact that mutation frequency is so low seems to make the whole mechanism questionable.

---

largely because the scientific community is largely biased toward materialism.

Yes, the scientific community is biased toward things that can be verified, tested, falsified. Not sure why you would think otherwise?

As soon as someone is able to develop a method to demonstrate that the non-material exists, there would be interest in the scientific community.

Well conceptual ideas are immaterial, even if they are (and i do believe they are) the product of our physical neural setup. The laws of mathematics are not material. And the ID community is trying to develop a mechanism to discern if something was designed. As some people (at least one person) on this thread has addressed, we do not know enough about the quantitative nature of the variable (information) in order to draw specific empirical conclusions. However, like many other scientific disciplines, we can draw general preliminary conclusions based on the qualitative nature of the variable. Just as the theory of evolution cannot quantify the necessary variables to conclude a probability of its truth, neither can design (yet). Like any historical claim, just because we weren't there does not mean that we can't use our evidence to try to narrow the gap associated with our speculations.