# A Comprehensive Theory of Intelligent Design

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-comprehensive-theory-of-intelligent-design/13625>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [April 24, 2021, 1:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-comprehensive-theory-of-intelligent-design/13625 "2021-04-24T01:05:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 38

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2021, 4:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-comprehensive-theory-of-intelligent-design/13625/38 "2021-04-29T16:15:55Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > “[n]ew parts don’t evolve from old ones, and we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved."
> 
> Did Jerry Coyne really say that? The first part of the sentence isn’t true: new parts _do_ mostly evolve from old ones. And in the second part, who are “we”?

No, he didn’t. Coyne [wrote](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dPh0DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false) “_New parts evolve from old ones, and have to work well with the parts that have already evolved_”. Note the absence of “_don’t_” and “_we_”…

However, Casey Luskin misquoted Coyne [here](http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1507):

> In his book _Why Evolution is True_ , evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims that " _Imperfect_ design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we _expect_ from evolution." (p. 81) He makes this prediction because "[n]ew parts **don’t** evolve from old ones, and **we** have to work well with the parts that have already evolved.

which is exactly what @Meerkat_SK5 wrote. @Meerkat_SK5 also gives the same potentially wrong page number as Luskin, the same “_[n]ew_” as Luskin, and the same two quotes split up in the same way as Luskin.

So once again @Meerkat_SK5 is trying to pass off IDer misrepresentations as the original text, and once again has cited the original source, and not Luskin’s article or wherever he _actually_ got that quote from.

@Meerkat_SK5 is lying about his sources, and bears full responsibility for once again saying _the exact opposite_ of his cited source. There is no reason to think @Meerkat_SK5 has read Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True”, he clearly doesn’t know or care whether his ‘quote’ is representative or accurate, he clearly hasn’t learnt anything from his earlier misrepresentation of Yockey, and any citations from him can be dismissed immediately as unreliable.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-comprehensive-theory-of-intelligent-design/13625)._