Obviously not, but there is no clue as to what specific thing he was responding to. I suggest you read the entire context, in which it is clear that Shapiro is not included in the conversation leading up to his quotation. He isn't even in the room.
What is clear from the general writings and interviews of Shapiro is that he always distances himself from any implication that his conjectures require supernatural intervention. What he describes is an entirely naturalistic process. He goes to great pains to criticise Behe for failing to see that the ability of computers to execute algorithms demonstrates the ability of natural systems to behave intelligently.
He's not in the room?? What a surprise? /sarc How do even remotely think that I supposed he was there after I criticised you for asserting that you had "posted the entire exchange" by pointing out that "What you posted was what Meyer stated that a friend of his stated that Shapiro stated."? I read the entire context of that renamed link. I know that you are citing the eeeeviiiil Discovery intstitute and the eeeeviiiill Stephen Meyer. The irony is delicious.
What is clear from the general writings and interviews of Shapiro is that he always distances himself from any implication that his conjectures require supernatural intervention.
You are doing what you accused me of doing, "making things up". This brings up another delicious irony, "Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is yes.", Shapiro stated that. You harp on the second question that has a yes answer. What was the first question which is answered yes?