[general_re]

Means that there exists a question and he does not reject an answer, which you say he does. Which naturalistic explanation that you cited has the potential guiding intelligence contained therein?

This one:

Signal transduction is not limited to multicellular development. We are learning that virtually every aspect of cellular function is influenced by chemical messages detected, transmitted, and interpreted by molecular relays. To a remarkable extent, therefore, contemporary biology has become a science of sensitivity, inter- and intra-cellular communication, and control. Given the enormous complexity of living cells and the need to coordinate literally millions of biochemical events, it would be surprising if powerful cellular capacities for information processing did not manifest themselves. In an important way, then, biology has returned to questions debated during the mechanism-vitalism controversy earlier this century. This time around, however, the discussion is informed by two new factors. One is that the techniques of molecular and cell biology allow us to examine the detailed operation of the hardware responsible for cellular responsiveness and decision-making. The second is the existence of computers and information networks, physical entities endowed with computational and decision-making capabilities. Their existence means that discussing the potential for similar activities by living organisms is neither vague nor mystical.

Unlike ID theory, which posits the existence of some external intelligence operating on passive organisms, it is tolerably obvious that Shapiro is talking about the ability of living organisms to shape themselves in response to external events. You are conflating the Shapiro's notion of "intelligence", which he uses to indicate internal information-processing abilities, with an external operator. They are not one and the same, the fallacy of equivocation notwithstanding - one (Shapiro's) is entirely naturalistic, and the other is not.

[AndrewC]

Unlike ID theory, which posits the existence of some external intelligence operating on passive organisms, it is tolerably obvious that Shapiro is talking about the ability of living organisms to shape themselves in response to external events

Then what is your beef with Shapiro?

[AndrewC]

Unlike ID theory, which posits the existence of some external intelligence operating on passive organisms, it is tolerably obvious that Shapiro is talking about the ability of living organisms to shape themselves in response to external events

Then what is your beef with Shapiro?

[gore3000]

it is tolerably obvious that Shapiro is talking about the ability of living organisms to shape themselves in response to external events.

He does not say any such thing anywhere. Computers do not 'shape themselves' neither do information networks. These are designed. Also "the need to coordinate literally millions of biochemical events " shows quite well that random stochastic processes cannot alter or change such systems as evolutionists would have us think.