Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

One minor problem -- carbon is frackin' everywhere. You can't take it out of the Earth to see if life could've arisen without it, since there's no time when the Earth was without carbon. If you want to posit that the Earth started with no carbon, and needed it seeded; then you have to do the same with the carbon that's everywhere else. The position that the Earth was given carbon so that life could exist doesn't explain why the other planets have carbon as well.

Why don't you just remove all baryonic matter?

Doesn't matter. It's a heck of a lot easier.
You're taking stuff away, and looking for the point where life wouldn't work. If there is such a point, then, according to you, the ToE is disproved. Now, instead of bothering with the process of taking one thing out, seeing if life would work; and if not, seeing if there's something else that could be used as a replacement; and if there's a replacement, removing that replacement, etc.; it's much simpler to just remove everything. If life doesn't still work after you've removed all the components, then by your reasoning, the ToE is disproved. And it's pretty easy to show that you wouldn't have life if you have nothing at all.

I know, but that's remarkably inefficient.
You're trying to find the exact straw that breaks the camel's back. But since your goal is to simply break the camel's back, why bother being all precise? Just drop a frackin' semi full of hay bales onto the camel and get it over with.