“Not sure why you’re inserting Shapiro’s name in brackets here”
Because he used the word.
I myself [Shapiro]“support… evolution guided by divine intervention.”
That makes me an evolutionist.

“Why would you ask me about your beliefs?”
I might ask you about your understanding of what my beliefs are.

“If someone believes that an intelligent creator created the universe in the big bang, and then walked away from that universe, never to be heard from again, would you consider that belief a ‘religious belief’?”
“Not necessarily religious, ‘though I suppose it could be associated with a religion”

If someone believes that an intelligent creator created the universe in the big bang, and created biology including humans, and then walked away from that universe, never to be heard from again, would you consider that belief a ‘religious belief’?

“Would the proponents of this hypothetical religion worship this creator? … Some might consider it to be a philosophical belief in deism, which is not typically considered a revealed religion”
Einstein was a deist.
I wouldn’t say he worshiped the god of deism.
I’m unaware of Einstein engaging in any religious rituals in connection with his belief in the god of deism.
One could say that the god of deism was revealed to Einstein via Einstein’s understanding of physics.

“If someone believes that matter has existed for an infinitely-long amount of time, and only recently did mind appear, would you consider that belief a ‘religious belief’?”
“Not typically, but there’s a lot of different religious beliefs out there. Some are pretty atypical”
I see.

“He doesn’t say why, but in your own link Shapiro guesses”
“Who is ‘he’? (Shapiro? Behe?)”
“If you had read your own link, which you claim you did, it should be perfectly obvious”
‘Shapiro doesn’t say why, but in your own link Shapiro guesses’
‘Behe doesn’t say why, but in your own link Shapiro guesses’

“Do you yourself believe that Behe ‘feels intelligence is somehow beyond nature’?”
“You would need to ask Behe”
I doubt Behe even knows that you exist.
Do you yourself believe that Behe “feels intelligence is somehow beyond nature”?

“What do you think is responsible for the origination of the realm of biology’s ‘complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’?”
“Are you asking me what I believe is responsible for the origin of life. I don’t know”
I’m not asking that.

“Are you asking me why biologists have traditionally understood living things to have been designed for a purpose?”
No.
Dawkins says that, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
I’m asking, What do you think is responsible for the origination of the realm of biology’s [Dawkins]”complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”?

And to see how familiar you are with Dawkins, I will also ask,
Do you know what Dawkins believes is responsible for the origination of the realm of biology’s [Dawkins]”complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”?
If ‘yes,’ what does Dawkins believe is responsible?

_Evolution “On Purpose”: Teleonomy in Living Systems_ (2023)

A unique exploration of teleonomy—also known as “evolved purposiveness”—as a major influence in evolution by a broad range of specialists in biology and the philosophy of science.
The evolved purposiveness of living systems, termed “teleonomy” by chronobiologist Colin Pittendrigh, has been both a major outcome and causal factor in the history of life on Earth.
Many theorists have appreciated this over the years, going back to Lamarck and even Darwin in the nineteenth century.
In the mid-twentieth century, however, the complex, dynamic process of evolution was simplified into the one-way, bottom-up, single gene-centered paradigm widely known as the modern synthesis.
In _Evolution “On Purpose,”_ edited by Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, Richard I. Vane-Wright, and Addy Pross, some twenty theorists attempt to modify this reductive approach by exploring in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.
_Evolution “On Purpose”_ puts forward a more inclusive theoretical synthesis that goes far beyond the underlying principles and assumptions of the modern synthesis to accommodate work since the 1950s in … and other fields.
In the view of the authors, active biological processes are responsible for the direction and the rate of evolution.
Essays in this collection grapple with topics from the two-way “read-write” genome to cognition and decision-making in plants to the niche-construction activities of many organisms to the self-making evolution of humankind.
As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes,
“The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”

“Do you agree with this?:
‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’
— Richard Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_”

“Sounds reasonable enough as an informal observation…
I imagine I get Dawkin’s point, but I haven’t read it in context.”

Richard Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_ (1986)
amazon .com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491/
** you do not have permission to see this link **
CHAPTER 1 EXPLAINING THE VERY IMPROBABLE
We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe.
The universe that we know, of course, is a tiny fragment of the actual universe.
There may be yet more complicated objects than us on other planets, and some of them may already know about us.
But this doesn’t alter the point that I want to make.
Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation.
We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated.
The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space.
On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call ‘simple’ things, such as rocks, clouds, rivers, galaxies and quarks.
These are the stuff of physics.
Chimps and dogs and bats and cockroaches and people and worms and dandelions and bacteria and galactic aliens are the stuff of biology.
The difference is one of complexity of design.
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design.

[Dawkins]”Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Cf.

Stephen C. Meyer, “Signature in the Cell: Intelligent Design and the DNA Enigma” on 270-282 of
_The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity_ (2012)
amazon .com/Blackwell-Companion-Science-Christianity/dp/1444335715/
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But with the advent of Darwinism, and later neo-Darwinism, modern science claimed to explain the appearance of design in life as the product of a purely undirected process.
In the _Origin_, Darwin argued that the striking appearance of design in living organisms – in particular, the way they are so well adapted to their environments – could be explained by natural selection working on random variations, a purely undirected process that nevertheless mimicked the powers of a designing intelligence.
Thus, as evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala (2007, 8567) notes, Darwin accounted for “design without a designer.”
Indeed, since 1859 the appearance of design in living things has been understood by most biologists to be an illusion – a powerfully suggestive illusion but an illusion nonetheless.
Or as Francis Crick put, biologists must “constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (Crick 1988, 138).

Thorne says “the correct laws of physics… probably do not” have singularities, and he awaits the formulation of “a quantum theory of gravity.”
He seemingly-contradicts himself by also saying, “recent numerical simulations on supercomputers have confirmed those analyses: singularities are a generic outcome of stellar implosion.”

Kip Thorne & Roger Blandford, _Relativity and Cosmology: Volume 5 of Modern Classical Physics_ (2021), 1151-1544, on 1271

As with r –> 2M, there are two possibilities:
either the tidal forces as measured on the star’s surface remain finite as r –> 0, in which case something must be going wrong with the coordinate system;
or else the tidal forces diverge, destroying the star.
The tidal forces are computed in Ex. 26.10, with a remarkable result:
they diverge.
Thus, the region r = 0 is a _spacetime singularity_:
a region where tidal gravity becomes infinitely large, destroying everything that falls into it.
This conclusion, of course, is very unsatisfying.
It is hard to believe that the correct laws of physics will predict such total destruction.
In fact, they probably do not.
As we will find in Sec. 28.7.1, in discussing the origin of the universe, when the radius of curvature of spacetime becomes a small as … 10^(-33) cm, space and time must cease to exist as classical entities;
they and the spacetime geometry must then become quantized.
Correspondingly, general relativity must then break down and be replaced by a quantum theory of the structure of spacetime– a quantum theory of gravity.
That quantum theory will describe and govern the classically singular region at r = 0.
Since, however, only rough hints of the structure of that quantum theory are in hand at this time, it is not known what that theory will say about the endpoint of stellar implosion.

on 1273:
Our discussion here has been confined to spherically symmetric, nonrotating black holes created by the gravitational implosion of a spherically symmetric star.
Of course, real stars are not spherical, and it was widely believed– perhaps we should say, hoped– in the 1950s and 1960s that black-hole horizons and singularities would be so unstable that small nonsphericities or small rotations of the imploding star would save it from the black-hole fate.
However, elegant and very general analyses carried out in the 1960s, largely by the British physicists Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, showed otherwise.
More recent numerical simulations on supercomputers have confirmed those analyses:
singularities are a generic outcome of stellar implosion, as are the black-hole horizons that clothe them.