Actually ID doesn't accert that those are impossible. God obviously did it, so there is some process that works. We don't know what processes God used. It is not unreasonable to believe that God may have used what we consider to be regular processes of chemistry. What ID maintains, is that biological objects did not come into being by mere chance and random processes of chemistry, but was part of an intelligent design process. Whereas, evolutionists INSIST on a completely random process, that does not require a creator or designer.
"ID, as a matter of principle, asserts that certain processes cannot be disassembled."
Here again you are wrong. ID is not against dissasembling creation to learn about it's design. ID simply objects to attributing that design entirely to random chance, because there is little evidence for that. Evolutionists assume "random chance" was the causative event not because of the evidence, but because they assume a lack of a creator. Thus their belief system is influencing their science.
Please note that we are not discussing who made the dirt, or who created the laws of nature. We are discussing how the world works now that it exists.
Not really, we are discussing how life began and whether it was by random chance or through intelligent design. We are not discussing how the world works now. Even if man dissassembles DNA to the point that Man himself can create new life forms from scratch, that will not prove the evolutionists belief that man came from random events rather than was designed. Likewise, even if man dissassembles physical processes to the point that Man himself can control the forces necessary to bring an entire universe into existence, that will not prove that our universe was happenstance rather than intelligent design.
It is a matter of implying that one should give up without a fight.
No it is a matter of stating unequivocally that one should not assume as fact that which he has extremely limited knowledge of.
Science is full of examples of such scientific arrogance and it harms the cause of science as well as Mankind. How many families had suspicions and split up because their child had the wrong eye color? According to 1970's genetics eye color was controlled by a single gene and and two people with recessive genes could not have a baby with different color eyes. Only now 30 years later, a humbler science admits that eye color is controlled by at least 4 different genes and that those four are not the complete list, there must be more factors.
We are barely starting to learn about the human genome, but evolutionists eager to defend their beliefs have already made enormous claims for DNA proving common descent. Even if we fully understood DNA, it would not prove that. Claims to that effect are simply bad science, a belief system attempting to usurp the name of science in it's defense.
That is precisely what the controversy is all about.
Creationists assume "intelligent design" was the causative event because the evidence is visible even to the naked eye of a two-year-old. What is more, they do not necessarily import their belief system into science, but they operate with this knowledge in the background. They work within a GIVEN; they operate with intelligence and design in a universe chock full of intelligent design, for without a maker there can be no discoverer nor anything TO discover.
Without design and intelligence there would not even be consciousness, let alone materials to observe.