Are you actually so dishonest as to suggest that your word salad actually gives context to what Shapiro said? Shapiro can’t possibly be aware of the verbiage that surrounds his quote.
“James Shapiro, the University of Chicago, is working on pre-programmed adaptive capacity. And my friend, Paul Nelson, went and talked to him; they were on a panel – Shapiro said, “You know, I can’t make heads or tails of what you guys are talking about with intelligent design.” And Nelson went to talk to Shapiro and he said, “Look, you’re really into this idea of pre-programmed adaptive capacity as a kind of alternative to strict Darwinism. We think that’s a neat phenomenon. Let me ask you a question, Jim. Where does the programming come from in the first place?” And Shapiro apparently said to Nelson, “You know, I rarely think about that.” “
All the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant to Shapiro’s statement and the question he addresses. Why do you suppose Shapiro says he can’t make heads or tails out of intelligent design? He is obviously aware of ID claims.
Why do you suppose Shapiro says Behe is unfortunately injecting religion into science?
And going back to the Q&A in which you appeared, Why do you suppose Shapiro blew off rather specific questions about the “gaps” between the common ancestors of apes and humans?
And why does he insist on the phrase “natural genetic engineering” rather than engineering injected by an outside designer?
Dishonest? You're the one that posted a partial reference. The only reason you have to believe that Shapiro actually made that statement is the context from which you extracted it. It is not a word salad. It is the context of his statement, the gist of which is "You know, I rarely think about that". About what? "Where does the programming come from, in the first place?"
But that is a question down the road from your citation of the initial Shapiro quote. Which you apparently intend as the subject of this.
All the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant to Shapiro’s statement and the question he addresses.
What question is it that he addresses?
Again, you keep losing the original argument concerning DNA and computer code.
Finally, to answer another of your red herring.
And why does he insist on the phrase “natural genetic engineering” rather than engineering injected by an outside designer?
His words ----
“You know, I rarely think about that.” “