" but how open are Johnson _et al_ to the possibility of something like
Crick's "directed panspermia" - which is ultimately a naturalistic
explanation?"
1. You'd have to ask him. Or them.
2. What difference does it make what one or another person holds? The
point at interest ought to be the ID hypothesis, not the person(s)
involved.
If the ID hypothesis does not include such a possibility, it ought to
(IMO). As I understand it, it does.
In my interchanges with Johnson, Nelson, etc. I have not detected any
position which would suggest the contrary.
Burgy