You continue to miss his point. He is saying plainly that intelligence can be purely mechanical and does not require any assumption of supernatural intervention.
Phillip Johnson reads Shapiro’s statement the same way I do:
“That sounds like a ringing endorsement of Behe’s scientific claims, but Shapiro nonetheless blasted Behe for arguing that those unexplained biochemical systems might be designed. Raising that possibility was “fighting the battles of the past rather than seeing the vision of the future.” That’s another illustration of how strong the hold of materialist philosophy is on the minds of contemporary biologists. If Behe’s science is accurate, why should the vision of the future exclude design?
Shapiro then proceeded from philosophical prejudice to a form of confusion we have seen before. What Behe failed to recognize, he wrote, was that we now have experience with computers. “Having exemplars of physical objects endowed with computational and decision-making capabilities shows that there is nothing mystical religious, or supernatural about discussing the potential for similarly intelligent action by living organisms.”
No I don't. His comment on Behe's book is irrelevant to the discussion of whether DNA is like code. Plus, I ignore your red herring, since the "book report" you keep referring to is not germane. You are blind to the fact that computers compute because humans designed them that way. Computers do not compute because they compute due to the fact they compute. Something designed them, us.