No you didn't. What you posted was what Meyer stated that a friend of his stated that Shapiro stated. Now obviously, Shapiro did not just blurt out, "You know, I can’t make heads or tails of what you guys are talking about with intelligent design." and then complete his entire conversation with "You know, I rarely think about that." That is why the context is important. Since the concept that is being broached in Meyer's total quote is "So you can’t extrapolate from a system that is running downhill informationally to explain the origin of large amounts of new functional information. That requires something new. I had an article recently in a London newspaper, and a professor wrote in who works on computational simulations of evolutionary theory. He says, “I don’t see why they both can’t be true.” He says, “What I see is the programmer puts the original information in the system and then evolution takes over from there."
When Shapiro expresses his confusion as to what ID addresses, Paul Nelson, Meyer's friend, sets up the basis for answering Shapiro's confusion. That answer is "But that’s what we think about and I think the two can go together. There are real evolutionary phenomenon that can be studied, but the origination of the programming is something that I think requires design. Which two? 1. Shapiro's work 2. The origin of the programming.
Shapiro was being honest.
You have gone from misreading to simply making stuff up. Try making your point without injecting verbiage that isn’t in the original.
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.