Philosophy has a lot more to say about the relation between biological evolution and world views than Shapiro is willing to admit. To move from entailment to sociology is simply too abrupt a leap. By concentrating on entailment and jumping from there to sociology, Shapiro has ignored the epistemological question of what implications exist between Darwinism and religion. In philosophy, implication is a more general notion than entailment. The scenario of Al and Bob locked in a room together with some appropriate background assumptions would implicate that Bob had murdered Al, but it wouldn't entail that Bob had murdered Al.
Implication includes entailment, and therefore addresses questions of possibility and necessity.
But implication also addresses questions of uncertainty, partial evidence, and probability. X can implicate Y without X having to force Y to be true under all possible circumstances. X can implicate Y. X can be true, but Y might still fail. Any lawyer will appreciate this point. As an aside, let me mention that this is one reason why I appreciate Phillip Johnson's work of weighing neo-Darwinism in the legal balances.