8/4/2019 Metamorphosis Reply
1/3
Notes on Metamorphosis, a creationist movie from Illustra
Media
Metamorphosis is the latest movie from the intelligent design
creationist studio Illustra Media. Liketheir previous movies,
Metamorphosis uses flashy graphics to paper over its creationist
agenda. InMetamorphosis, most of the movie recites well-known facts
about the process of metamorphosis in but-terflies and moths, with
an irrelevant tangent into butterfly migrations. In the final 15
minutes, two of theinterviewees make the case for creationism,
claiming evolution cannot explain metamorphosis. Both ofthese
advocates for creationism Paul Nelson and Ann Gauger are affiliated
with the Discovery Insti-tute, a conservative foundation dedicated
to political attacks on the teaching of evolution. Nelson, itshould
be noted, is an avowed advocate of the view thatthe earth is less
than 10,000 years old.
Evolution of metamorphosis: Paul Nelson closes themovie by
claiming: By its very nature, metamorphosis isan all-or-nothing
propositionMetamorphosis if it cameinto existence at all by an
undirected process, had to havedone so in one fell swoop. Ann
Gauger adds for evolu-tion to have created this sort of pathway,
gradually, itwould take a miracle. These false claims lead to the
falseconclusion that evolutionary processes could not producethe
metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly.
Nelson, Gauger, and the filmmakers omit crucial evi-dence. By
examining insects other than butterflies, we cansee that
metamorphosis did not evolve all at once, butthrough the sort of
gradual process which Nelson and Gauger deny. Only because the
filmmakers restricttheir consideration to a single branch of the
insect tree of life might these claims even seem plausible.
Scientists who study insects recognize three major types of
metamorphosis. The simplest sort of is de-scribed as ametabolous,
meaning unchanging. In ametabolous insects, metamorphosis involves
growth,
but not change in shape. Each molt leaves the insectlarger, but
with the same essential body parts, in thesame sizes. In
hemimetabolous (partly changing)insects, adults look different from
earlier stages, but all
of the important structures including compound eyesand wing buds
of the adult are present in earlierstages
Butterflies belong to the third category of insects. Inthese
holometabolous (fully changing) insects alsoincluding flies, ants,
bees, wasps, and beetles theearly stages are wormlike (or
caterpillar-like). Wingsdevelop inside the body, but do not appear
outside untilthe adult stage. Between those early stages and
theadult stage, holometabolous insects form a pupa, oftencovered in
a cocoon or chrysalis.
These distinctions are basic elements of an entomologyclass or
textbook. To attempt a discussion of the evolu-tion of
metamorphosis without touching on this varia-tion is pointless.
Scientists who study metamorphosis
use that variation to illuminate the evolutionary path-way from
simpler to more complex forms ofmetamorphosis. This movie leaves
viewers without the
basic knowledge necessary to form their own views.
Conceptual model of evolution of complex metamorphosis
Between stages a and b, the embryonic stage of an
ametabolous
insect becomes the prelarva of a hemimetabolous insect. That
embryonic stage lasts longer and longer, as the nymphal
stage
contracts until it occurs entirely within the pupa. From Truman,
J.
W. and L. M. Riddiford (1999) The origins of insect
metamorphosis,Nature401:447-452.
8/4/2019 Metamorphosis Reply
2/3
These three categories of metamorphosis show the broad outlines
of how complex metamorphosis likethat seen in butterflies could
evolve from simpler processes seen in other insects. Researchers
addressingthis transition note that the earliest stages of
holometabolous insects strongly resemble the embryonicforms of
ametabolous and hemimetabolous insects. Their research suggests
that early insect forms like thecaterpillar originated when
embryonic insects had to hatch out of the egg before development
completeddue to inadequate food resources in the eggs yolk.
This hypothesis generates powerful predictions, which scientists
continueto evaluate. Simply declaring, as Nelson and Gauger do,
that the entirematter of metamorphosis is a miracle involving a
supernatural intelli-gent agent does nothing to advance science.
Such an entity would, ofcourse, be capable of anything, which means
theres no observation whichwould let us evaluate the claim either
to falsify it or to validate it. Be-cause intelligent design
creationism cannot be scientifically tested, it isnot a scientific
hypothesis, and it is inappropriate to attempt to present
intelligent design creationism andevolution as scientific
equals.
Beauty: Paul Nelson says, There may well be in butterflies
aspects of beauty thatare there not for the sake of reproduction or
survival, but for us to appreciate,and Ann Gauger adds Beauty is a
sign of the transcendent. It's purely gratuitous.
The beautiful colors and patterns in butterfly wings are hardly
gratuitous. Theprocesses driving them are an active field of
research, since they serve importantevolutionary functions: scaring
away predators, attracting mates, fending off ri-vals, and hiding
the insect from predators. The movie ignores these factors to
fo-cus narcissistically on how butterflies make people feel.
Ignored in that argument is the harm caused by the far less
attractive caterpillars.If we are to believe the process of
metamorphosis was divinely created for the
benefit of humans, what are we to think of other holometabolous
insects themaggots which metamorphose into flies and mosquitoes, or
parasitic wasp larvae
which eat their hosts flesh until they burst free and kill the
host? Again, the movies narrow scope glossesover the profound
logical flaws in their argument.
In particular, we should note that the larval forms of
butterflies and moths often cause significant eco-nomic harm. Dr.
Tom Royer, an agricultural entomologist at Oklahoma State
University, points out thatarmy cutworms can destroy up to 30% of a
field of wheat in a bad year, and estimates that 5-10% ofOklahomas
crops are destroyed by these and other caterpillars in a given
year. Before the advent oftransgenic corn and cotton crops which
produce their own pesticides three quarters of corn fields
andnearly every cotton field required pesticide treatmentagainst
damage by butterfly or moth larvae. For wheat,sorghum, and canola
Oklahomas major crops Royerestimates, aphids and lepidopterans
[butterflies andmoths] are the major pests. Surely the fact that
butter-flies spend most of their lives as major,
economicallyharmful pests does not speak to human-centered designof
metamorphosis.
Migration: The migration of monarch butterflies is farafield
from the question of metamorphosis, and has noobvious relevance to
the film. It should be noted that
none of the scientists interviewed about his own work,whether on
monarch migrations or butterflymetamorphosis,was subsequently
quoted adopting the0creationist views advocated in the movies
closing mo-
Declaring metamorphosisa miracle involving asupernatural
intelligentagent does nothing to
advance science
Butterfly larvae can destroy up to 30% of a
field of wheat. 5-10% of Oklahomas crops
are destroyed by caterpillars in a given year
shua Rosenau
day, 4:21 PM
dded Text
shua Rosenau
day, 4:21 PM
dded Text
shua Rosenau
day, 4:21 PM
eplaced: were
