Creationists on the whole believe that existence as we've come to know it is the product of a supreme being or some supernatural, yet intelligent power. Since creationism is mostly debated in the west, its foundation is the bible. You can subdivide creationists according to the way in which the interpret the Book of Genesis. 1. Young Earth Creationists. The most ardent anti-evolutionists. 2. Old earth Creationists. Generally embrace evolution. 3. Gap Creationists. Believe the earth is old but life on it isn't. 4. Day-Age creationist - rationally interpret the word "day" in genesis based on the hebrew word "Yom" (which is used to also mean age), the fact that a human day starts with morning but a creation day starts with evening (a deliberate convention used by the author of Genesis 1 to seperate an earth day from a creation day), the way in which humanity keeps time was created on the 3rd day, and the fact that the seventh day in which God rested does not list an evening and morning. This group, like the old earth creationists, believes the earth and universe are quite old and are comfortable with scientific approximations of its age. They tend to also be progressive creationists. Meaning they believe God guided all the influences that affect evolutionary development. They also recognize that the bible lists the order of life on earth in the same sequence as observed in the fossil record. There's a few more subdivisions but they can more or less be associated with one or more of the above. As for ID'ers, the original group who proposed the theory are Christians affliated with the discovery group. So pretty much if you're not a creationist in the west, you're a materialist.
Let's see what the star witness on your side, Prof. Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, UK, says about ID: So he says that ID is not creationism. But wait, So he says it is creationism. Did he get confused by all the masquerading? Full transcript is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day15pm2.html#day15pm681
kjkent1 wrote: Not so fast. I'm not about to waste my time presenting a circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life to a bunch of critics that are laboring under the mistaken notion that the case for a non-teleological origin of life is more than circumstantial. We need to resolve that issue before proceeding.
Ultimately it boils down to an intelligent sentience. Too many problems with an extra-terrestrial as the ID. For one, what created the ET? And on and on. IDer's who wish to propose the idea of an extra-terrestial as the ID generally limit the scope of the discussion to just life on earth and not the origins of the universe with all of its associated orders. As if the ET "seeded" Earth with life knowing it would evolve and perhaps helping it along at various stages. I think it's best to limit ID at a supreme diety. One would only have to dismiss the non-sensical argument of who created the diety providing that the diety is defined as the first cause. It would still just be an "idea" without an proof but would stand up to most rational philosophical arguments.
To summarize then ... Teleologist: What I have is an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life kjkent1 Question: OK, what is your "intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life?" Teleologist Answer: I'm not about to waste my time presenting a circumstantial case for a teleological origin of life
Seems to me this would only pose a problem for those that don't think that at some point in the future humans will have advanced technologically to where they will be able to seed distant planets with life forms capable of evolving. If this is a possible future then why couldn't a non-human ET in the past have "seeded" the earth with life?