And I stand by mine. The fact that you can't understand that "the third way" means not creationist and not Darwinian is not my fault. I have posted Shapiro more than once and recommended that you read him. Obviously you do not interpret words the same as I do. This
Evolution is the history of organisms that have succeeded in adapting to changing circumstances. Over evolutionary time, this means altering the genome — the long-term information storage organelle of all living cells — to provide the functional information needed to survive and reproduce in new conditions. Those organisms that have the most flexible computational capabilities, in particular those that have the best means of altering information stored in the genome, will have an advantage. Thus, it makes sense for organisms to possess crisis-responsive natural genetic engineering functions, and we should not be surprised to find them ubiquitous in contemporary organisms, all of whom are evolutionary winners. Indeed, it is now difficult to imagine how organisms that depend upon gradual accumulation of stochastic mutations could persist in the evolutionary rat race
is certainly not a recommendation for Darwinian evolution.
If you define "Darwinian evolution" to be exactly what Darwin wrote, then I agree with you. Darwin mentioned several times in "Origin of Species" that natural selection was a slow process.
Modern biology recognizes your underlined quote to be part of evolutionary theory traditionally called "Darwinian" since Darwin wasn't able to define "slow". So I suppose you could call it a third way if you're a "Darwinian literalist".