Editing Teleological argument (section)

=== "Third way" proposal ===

[[University of Chicago]] [[geneticist]] [[James A. Shapiro]], writing in the ''[[Boston Review]]'', states that advancements in genetics and molecular biology, and "the growing realization that cells have molecular computing networks which process information about internal operations and about the external environment to make decisions controlling growth, movement, and differentiation", have implications for the teleological argument. Shapiro states that these "[[natural genetic engineering]]" systems, can produce radical reorganizations of the "genetic apparatus within a single cell generation".<ref name="Shapiro">{{Cite web |last=Shapiro |first=James |title=A Third Way |url=https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR22.1/shapiro.html}}</ref> Shapiro suggests what he calls a 'Third Way'; a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution:
{{blockquote|text=What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations {{omission}}<ref name="Shapiro" />}}

In his book, ''[[Evolution: A View from the 21st Century]]'', Shapiro refers to this concept of "natural genetic engineering", which he says, has proved troublesome, because many scientists feel that it supports the intelligent design argument. He suggests that "function-oriented capacities [can] be attributed to cells", even though this is "the kind of teleological thinking that scientists have been taught to avoid at all costs".<ref>[[James A. Shapiro|Shapiro, James A]]. 2011. ''Evolution: A View from the 21st Century''. Pearson Education. [https://books.google.com/books?id=T7-UgI_kgT8C&q=shapiro+creationism pp. 136–37].</ref>