Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[robvalue]

Well, it barely matters that you die anyway. It's just about whether you found JAYSUS before you ate the wrong pretzel, and begged forgiveness for all that bum stuff you did.

I could hang around confessional, shooting people just before they go in. I'd literally be sending them all to hell.

[Fake Messiah]

basically just clips of different atheists talking about religion. Many of the featured atheists such as a Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, and Bill Maher are not scientists even in a broad sense of the word.

Good doctor Isaac Asimov explained why in the forward to James Randi's book "Flim-Flam":

"Randi is one person who has the ability and the temperament for the job;—none better!
He has no academic credentials, and therefore no academic restrictions. He can call things as he sees them, and is not held back by professional politeness..."

[AAA]

Intelligence is the only known cause of the information. The complexity of the cell is a product of information. Therefore intelligence is the only known cause that is capable of leading to cells.

For the third time, human intelligence is not capable of producing the complexity seen in a cell.  The complexity of the cell is the product of chemistry.  A chemical system that is beyond the capacity of human designers to design.  Since "intelligence" isn't a known cause of the complexity of the cell, you can only mean something else.  That something else is spelled out in the terms complex, specified information.  Complex information is ubiquitous.  All systems produce 'information'.  So it can't depend on it merely being complex information.  And the term specified is vacuous, so that adds nothing to the equation.

You can't just assert that something is an argument from ignorance and conclude that it is false. You are implying that there is a different explanation which we are currently ignorant of. That may be true, but we have no biochemical reason to think so. The only reason to think so is your own ideological bias.

I'm not concluding that it is false, I'm concluding that it is an invalid argument for your conclusion.  That isn't due to my ideological biases, that's due to the structure of your argument.  If you don't like the fact that you have made an invalid argument, then get another god damned argument.

And does it really produce false positives?  I might have missed it, but can you give examples of non-designed systems that have sequential information that leads to function? Otherwise, I think that the only way to state that it produces false positives would be to assert that living systems themselves were not designed and use that assertion to justify your rejection of the ID technique.

I've been through this.  The word function doesn't apply specifically to designed systems.  The rain has a function in the hydrological cycle.  Rocks on a beach sort themselves hydrologically; that's sequential information.  None of the terms you've supplied apply exclusively to designed things, so by consequence you will have false positives.  For an example, I'd give the checkers playing neural nets of Chelapilla and Fogel. (here)(See here for a complete exposition.)

And I resent you telling me that I am denying established science for my inferences to work. I think you are confused on the empirical sciences and the speculative sciences. I disagree with the speculations of scientists often, but I don't think I've denied anything empirical.

I don't give a flying fucking damn that you resent it.  You're nothing but an evolution denier and evolution is established science.  Your made up distinction between speculative and empirical science is just your ideological bias looking for a way to worm itself to your already formed conclusion.  All science is a mix of both empirical observation and speculation.

And adequate for information. Sequential information that gives rise to function is this feature.

Already dealt with.

We know that living systems contain information (Is this the part you disagree with?). We know of only one process capable of leading to information.

All processes lead to 'information'.  It's the kind of information that is at issue, and you haven't been able to specify the kind of information in a way that unambiguously leads to designing intelligence.

You don't understand that the information of DNA is based on the chemical properties of the bases, the mRNA sequence that results from the process, and the chemical properties of the amino acid building blocks. It's not that there is not information, there is chemistry. It is that there is information derived by the cell from chemical properties of the characters that make up a sequence. They are the same thing. And you're right. We cannot produce cells yet. But information can (when accompanied by the appropriate enzymes (which themselves are the result of DNA sequence being interpreted by preceding enzymes)). Here's what you seem to be saying now: "cells are too complex to be produced by intelligence. Therefore design is not a tenable argument and we must appeal to an undirected process to explain it."

And you cannot just assert that all systems exert complex information. That is a ridiculous assertion and you know it. You have to address the fact that undirected processes have never been observed to produce a sequence of characters capable of accomplishing a specific function. You complain about my definition of information, then basically go on to define information as some ubiquitous feature present in everything. DNA is what it is. You can object to it being defined as irregular sequential information that accomplishes a specific purpose if you want, but then you would be disagreeing with every (this is one of the few times I feel comfortable using such an inclusive word as "every") scientist on either side of the debate. You then go on to tell me that I am denying science as though you have an understanding of biology that I don't.

Do you want to explain the term argument of ignorance to me then? Can we draw any conclusions on any topic that we do not know everything about (which ironically would be every topic), or would a conclusion just be a statement of ignorance? I'm having trouble understanding how any claim not rooted in empiricism can not be considered an argument from ignorance by you.

And evolution is an established science if you accept that the word evolution is merely referring to a change in gene frequencies over time. If you are going to try to tell me that it is established science that all living things have descended from a common ancestor and that this process has led to an increase in complexity and functionality of the genetic code, I will be disappointed. You already implied (you might have even actually stated) that you do not believe that there is a working definition of complexity or functionality, so I'm curious why you would accept that there is a process that can lead to it. If you don't think we have properly defined what it is we are trying to explain the origin of (functional DNA sequences), then why do you accept any conclusion for its origin?

You are honestly going to say that there should be no distinction made between empirical findings and speculation? It isn't all a mix, and scientists go to extreme lengths (at least they should) to distinguish between the two. If scientists all had the attitude that you describe, then the truth about the world would quickly be hidden behind a mask of confusion and conflicting speculation. I can find conflicting ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding the purpose of RNA editing machinery if you want. This is speculative science, and both sides make it clear. If we pretend this is empirical, then we must believe two directly contradictory ideas.

---

basically just clips of different atheists talking about religion. Many of the featured atheists such as a Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty, and Bill Maher are not scientists even in a broad sense of the word.

Good doctor Isaac Asimov explained why in the forward to James Randi's book "Flim-Flam":

"Randi is one person who has the ability and the temperament for the job;—none better!
He has no academic credentials, and therefore no academic restrictions. He can call things as he sees them, and is not held back by professional politeness..."

I agree that academic credentials aren't overly important if your ideas have content. Just don't put those people under the title of science.

[The Grand Nudger]

And evolution is an established science if you accept that the word evolution is merely referring to a change in gene frequencies over time.

That -is- what evolution is.........

If you are going to try to tell me that it is established science that all living things have descended from a common ancestor

That's just what genetics very strongly suggests (you know..the "synth" part of modern synth, our current evolutionary theory.....).  There could have been many disparate origins of life, but it's not an economical idea and at that point it might be genuinely strange to find so much shared between all existent life. Do you also strongly doubt the results of paternity tests?

and that this process has led to an increase in complexity and functionality of the genetic code, I will be disappointed.

There you go again.  I have the strange feeling that you'd be disappointed in anything that didn;t end with "therefore god" though, so....?

[AAA]

You act as though all ideas are treated the same by scientific journals.

Why would they treat every idea the same?  No one does that.

Like everything else, they put money first.

That's a pretty heavy accusation to make.  Are you implying that they would suffer a loss of funds if they didn't reject legitimate science that came from certain people?

Do you ignore everything that isn't peer reviewed?

No.  But peer review helps to keep scientists honest and is a way of cutting through bias and bad science in order to learn more.  To avoid the system that is in place is to avoid having your work tested as thoroughly and honestly as it should be.  That should make anyone suspicious.

I agree that they don't need to treat all ideas the same. But if you are aware that they don't, then you can't demand that I publish ideas in a scientific journal before you will consider them. 

I'm confused by your second question. I do think that different topics lead to differential journal subscription rates, which leads to different profit. 

And I agree that it is a way to keep scientists honest. They are not avoiding the system. They have published several articles, and peer-reviewed books as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

People absolutely can and should make that demand if you wish to treat your ideas -as- science.  Hell, they shouldn;t need to, you should be keen to do so.  Otherwise it's just not science. Creationism doesn't make it passed peer review, and it doesn't get play in scientific journals. That's a failure of the creationsit position. Not science, not journals, not the people who demand, of you, the tiniest smidgeon of credibility.

Why is creationism always about excuses rather than stepping up to the plate, as modern synth did and continues to do?

Honestly, if yall want there to be some competition, an actual controversy...why not make one? Why don't you come up with something better than "god played in the dirt and here we are"........?

[AAA]

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.

I'm curious as to why you think this matters at all? Yes, you're right: interfering with DNA is the only way we can get DNA to do what we want. That's because DNA doesn't take our wants into account when it forms, not because intelligence is required for DNA to do stuff. Did you seriously not consider this at all? We know that DNA arises naturally, and if your argument here is that you believe DNA requires an intelligent designer, because DNA only does what intelligent entities want it to do via intelligent input, then your position is entirely circular.

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.

Would you care to define what those terms mean, such that we can actually check that for ourselves, instead of just proclaiming they're correct?

Because I'll probably have some news for you, there.

DNA has not been demonstrated to arise naturally. It comes from pre-existing DNA in every observed instance, unless you are going to give me something about how nucleotides have been found. This is not the same as DNA. They must still be linked into a functional sequence, and have enzymes and a translation system for it to be functional. And you came late, us getting DNA to do what we want to (by inputting sequence) is evidence that intelligence is capable of leading to DNA. This by itself is not reason to believe that it is the only cause capable. You'll have to read the rest if you want.

What terms would you like me to define? It seems to be a defense mechanism by members of this thread to demand definitions, complain that they are not good enough for them, and dismiss the argument. Rather than defining these terms (which I can attempt to do if you want), would you like me to send you links to some peer-reviewed articles that I believe illustrate the concept of highly specific biological processes that do not rely on randomness. I can also give you plenty of articles related to the "junk" sequence functions if that's the part you are concerned about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is preexisting DNA somehow not natural? What sense could it make to say something like that, unless you think that semen or ovum are magical?

[AAA]

Is preexisting DNA somehow not natural?

Well it is, but it is preexisting information, which the ultimate origin of which seems to be attributed by esquillax to a non intelligent source (what I believe he meant by not natural).

[The Grand Nudger]

Then stop with the bullshit? Particularly the bullshit that even -you- can't countenance upon the slightest reflection? Or is that too much to ask as well........?