Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
PatrickHenry says: Permit me to offer a different formulation of the issue ... As I see it, the central hypothesis of ID is the assertion that there are features of living organisms which -- in principle -- cannot be explained by evolution.
Well, at this juncture, the only thing we're doing is defining our terms. It would seem to me that what you're describing, although typical of ID, is not a necessary attribute of ID (in other words, one may hypothesize that a feature is the product of intelligent design even though it can be explained by evolution). My expectation is that the matter will become relevant once we turn to the actual questions we're gearing up for, but is not requisite for the definition of ID itself.
If you do think that the above definition requires further modification, then the best way to proceed would be for you to take that definition and post an accordingly modified form so that we may consider it. For now, it seems to me that the definition is adequate for our purposes, which is to determine whether or not "panspermia" and/or "collective consciousness" are ID hypotheses.
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.I would modify it as follows:
Intelligent Design: A[n] hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life that are otherwise inexplicable are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.And I think you would prefer something like this:
Intelligent Design: A[n] hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life whether or not they are otherwise inexplicable are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.