Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

To put a less formal flair on it than Wounded King and Omnivorous, what you're requesting goes something like this: "Hey, evolutionists, here's an irreducibly complex system, how do you explain this one? Oh, well, okay, how about this one? Oh, well how about this one? Oh, well how about this one?"It takes a lot of time and effort to tease out the possible evolutionary histories of microbiological processes and structures, and in many cases there simply isn't sufficient information or evidence to do so. With no compelling evidence in favor of ID, and combined with the obvious origin of ID as a movement within evangelical Christianity motivated by a rejection of evolution (despite all the denials), only scientists who take the threat to science education seriously will be motivated to put time and energy into developing scientific answers to the questions posed by IDists like Behe.A similar analogy would be theories about aliens on other planets. Someone says there are aliens living on the moon. We go there, no aliens. So he says there are aliens living on Mars. We go there, no aliens. So he says there are aliens living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. We go there at great expense, no aliens.At what point does this silly process stop? To anyone familiar with science, disproving aliens and disproving claims of IR is patently ridiculous right at the outset, and to explore even the first claim makes no sense, because there's simply no evidence supporting the original claim, just a desire by a significant religious community that it be so.--Percy

Typically scientists invest their time and effort investigating their own or related hypotheses. What you want is to propose the hypothesis and then have scientists go off and assess its validity. I suggest that the IDists should be the ones working toward developing the evidence for ID.There isn't time to explore all avenues. Scientists explore the most promising hypotheses, those best supported by the evidence. To most scientists, the ID hypothesis isn't supported by any credible evidence and isn't worthy of their time. Like I said, it is usually the scientists most concerned about science education, and now that I think about it, also about the principles behind conducting good science, who give it any serious scientific attention, and they do this only to show that it still doesn't have any framework of evidence supporting it. IDists say they see design everywhere, but how is this any different from someone who says he sees God in everything in nature. The problem for IDists is to find objective evidence, which would be evidence that has some credibility outside the circle of ID believers.--Percy