Which objections? Based on all the ID objections I'm aware of, your opinion here is blatantly wrong.
Among these are the ones who do not personify the greater power but rather speak of something overarching, which I paraphrase as a "collective consciousness".
Then that paraphrase is misleading and inaccurate. Your cause would be served by coming up with a better description. I'd recommend "cosmic force" off the top of my head..
At any rate, the specific beliefs are irrelevant..
No, they're most certainly not.
...since Intelligent Design does not identify who or what the designer is other than to attribute intelligence ipso facto.
Yes. When there is nothing to identify, it's safe to identify nothing. But I have no problem moving along with that: show me evidence of your uncharacterized intelligence.
I disagree. Personification is a matter of personal metaphysics.
I'm not sure what you mean to say here, but "intelligence" is by definition a personified concept. Below you seem to think that when I use the term "entity" I mean "corporeal" but, if so, that would be incorrect. I'm not at all confused about the terms.
As an example, I don’t know whether Sheldrake would accept the label of “intelligent design” any more than Crick would have – nevertheless, his theory of morphic fields would be an accumulation of that type of intelligence.
The morphic fields are the entity. I didn't say the entity had to be corporeal, because it doesn't.
The Flynn Effect may be pointing to something non-corporeal as well.
The Flynn Effect may very well point to something non-corporeal, but since the Flynn Effect is utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand, who cares?
For some “all that there is” is that which exists in space/time – a microscope to telescope worldview. For many or most of us, “all that there is” is much more than this.
If you are implying the false dichotomy between us that I'm inferring, then it doesn't exist. I do not limit "all that there is" to space/time.
We include mathematical structures, forms, qualia and the ilk in “reality”.
Yeah, we includes me.
Moreover, most of us would say that "all that there is" is God’s will and unknowable in its fullness.
So what? We aren't talking about what "most of us would say" but rather of what reality is.
Likewise, to those whose worldview of reality is physical – objective truth can be deduced from within space/time because that is "all that there is" for them.
So what? The objective truth is the same for both classes you've identified. That's why it's the objective truth. It's very neat, though, how you play this little trick all the time of making objectivity subjective, but it's not.
But to those of us with the encompassing view..
My view is encompassing, and surely no less so than yours. Please don't mischaracterize me. It's dishonest and offensive.
...space/time is merely a hypercube of n dimensions which contains corporeal existents.
That works well enough for me. But in truth, we don't have a definitive answer to what lies beyond space/time, only conjecture, two examples are: your supernatural fantasies and the superstring hypothesis.
...therefore, "objective truth" can only be revealed from outside space/time, everything within space/time is relative per se.
Objective truth is not "objective truth"; it is objective truth. The innuendo of those little quotation marks is a sly ploy at subjectivism, consistent with your overall relativistic formula. God cannot exist for you but not for me. God either exists or does not exist. Period.
To us, God is Truth.
Good for you. But the question at hand does not regard what God is to you. The question regards what, if anything, God is.
You and I may well have such an irreconcilable difference in worldview.
The worldview you've described is relativism, and I am not a relativist. I do however find it intriguing that you are using relativism to try to reach an absolutist outcome. My suspicion is that you don't recognize it for what it is, but I could be wrong. You may in fact be an avowed relativist, or you may be dissembling.
IMHO, there are three phenomenon in the physical realm which scream that God exists: the unreasonable effectiveness of math, the fact of a beginning and information (successful communication) in life v non-life/death in nature.
To be blunt, truth is not contingent on your opinion. So, if this is actually meant to present an argument for the existence of God, why don't you try presenting an argument to support the premises, rather than informing me of your feelings.
Shall we recognize that we have an irreconcilable difference in worldview and agree to disagree? Or would you like to continue?
As I've often said before, I have no problem agreeing to disagree, but that is not an agreement that our contrasting views are equally valid. I am not a relativist, nor will I agree to pretend to be one.
You asked which panspermia/cosmic ancestry objections are indistinguishable from Intelligent Design objections. There are many examples on the panspermia.org link above - but here is an example from their FAQ/RAQ:
A. The theory that more organized forms of life on Earth evolved from less organized forms over about four billion years is well-established. But new genes are necessary for this process. The theory that new genes arise by random mutation of old genes and natural selection is not established. The result of every known mutation is either neutral or deleterious, except when the disabling of a gene is advantageous. It is possible that "gene duplication" followed by other mutations could have occasionally produced a closely related new gene with a function very similar to the original one. But a convincing account of even one wholly new gene with an unrelated specific new function, arising from mutations of an existing gene, or assembled from random strands of nucleotides, has not been given.
Q. What is the new understanding of evolution that comes with Cosmic Ancestry?
A. It is that new genes, already wholly composed, are installed into the genomes of species to enable evolution to advance.
Q. Doesn't the fossil record indicate that the first cells on Earth evolved after a long, gradual process that started with nonliving chemicals?
A. No. The oldest rocks that are capable of containing evidence of life (the rocks whose information hasn't been erased by melting or otherwise) contain evidence that the metabolism of bacterial cells was already under way. The best guess to make from that clue is that bacterial life — whole cells — were present on Earth from day one. (The standard prebiotic soup theory is now compelled to say that the first cells evolved from nonliving chemicals very quickly.)
The rest of your post seems to “cut” between objectivism and relativism. I am not at all a relativist:
Relativism is the view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference. Relativists claim that humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of, for example, their historical and cultural context. Philosophers identify many different kinds of relativism depending upon which classes of beliefs allegedly depend upon what.