[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

Nevertheless, by invoking a creator of some type, regardless of what that creator might be like, I don't think it's unfair to describe ID as one of many creationist theories.

I would tend to order it the other way around, with the group heading "Intelligent Design theories" and underneath - Judeo/Christian, YEC, panspermia, universal consciousness, etc.

This would be in contrast to the many naturalistic/materialistic theories, which do not invoke a creator/designer (or creators/designers, for that matter), either in particular or in general.

I personally believe that naturalistic/materialistic theories - all strongly deterministic theories - also point to a creation despite all their objections to the contrary. I say this because all of the theories require a beginning - even imaginary time theory, multi-verses and ekpyrotic cosmology.

When faced with this issue the only metaphysically naturalist appeal remaining is "anthropic principle" which is kinda like covering one's ears and singing loudly.

[general_re]

I would tend to order it the other way around, with the group heading "Intelligent Design theories" and underneath - Judeo/Christian, YEC, panspermia, universal consciousness, etc.

That hardly seems unreasonable, if you find it more convenient or more accurate to think of it in those terms.

I personally believe that naturalistic/materialistic theories - all strongly deterministic theories - also point to a creation despite all their objections to the contrary. I say this because all of the theories require a beginning - even imaginary time theory, multi-verses and ekpyrotic cosmology.

Possibly. Perhaps some things are simply not knowable to us. Yet. ;)