I think that it is totally irrelevant whether they hold that opinion or not.
In addition, the authors opinions are not relevant to the topic itself.
As I pointed out in
Message 3:
jar writes:
I really don't see much if any point to the topic.
Looking at science, when sufficient evidence is found to require a modification to a theory and when a mechanism is found that explains the model and mechanism that accounts for the new evidence then theories change.
So far nothing in Shapiro's work seems to require such change or is unexplained. Further he in no way points to any directed non-natural methodology.
If you look at your OP you will see that you are discussing "directed evolution", and dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial have nothing to do with some directed or drive evolutionary system.
You are quite simply, trying to palm the pea, misdirect the audience, con the rubes. create an attractive rabbit hole.
And you also refused to answer the question.
Does the phrase "dedicated, nonrandom, and beneficial" appear in either the abstract or the article?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!