Notes on Metamorphosis, a creationist movie from Illustra Media

Metamorphosis is the latest movie from the intelligent design creationist studio Illustra Media. Like their previous movies, Metamorphosis uses flashy graphics to paper over its creationist agenda. In Metamorphosis, most of the movie recites well-known facts about the process of metamorphosis in butterflies and moths, with an irrelevant tangent into butterfly migrations. In the final 15 minutes, two of the interviewees make the case for creationism, claiming evolution cannot explain metamorphosis. Both of these advocates for creationism Paul Nelson and Ann Gauger are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a conservative foundation dedicated to political attacks on the teaching of evolution. Nelson, it should be noted, is an avowed advocate of the view that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Evolution of metamorphosis: Paul Nelson closes the movie by claiming: By its very nature, metamorphosis is an all-or-nothing propositionMetamorphosis if it came into existence at all by an undirected process, had to have done so in one fell swoop. Ann Gauger adds for evolution to have created this sort of pathway, gradually, it would take a miracle. These false claims lead to the false conclusion that evolutionary processes could not produce the metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly. Nelson, Gauger, and the filmmakers omit crucial evidence. By examining insects other than butterflies, we can see that metamorphosis did not evolve all at once, but through the sort of gradual process which Nelson and Gauger deny. Only because the filmmakers restrict their 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 described as ametabolous, meaning unchanging. In ametabolous insects, metamorphosis involves growth, but not change in shape. Each molt leaves the insect larger, but with the same essential body parts, in the same sizes. In hemimetabolous (partly changing) insects, adults look different from earlier stages, but all of the important structures including compound eyes and wing buds of the adult are present in earlier stages Butterflies belong to the third category of insects. In these holometabolous (fully changing) insects also including flies, ants, bees, wasps, and beetles the early stages are wormlike (or caterpillar-like). Wings develop inside the body, but do not appear outside until the adult stage. Between those early stages and the adult stage, holometabolous insects form a pupa, often covered in a cocoon or chrysalis. These distinctions are basic elements of an entomology class or textbook. To attempt a discussion of the evolution of metamorphosis without touching on this variation is pointless. Scientists who study metamorphosis use that variation to illuminate the evolutionary pathway from simpler to more complex forms of Conceptual model of evolution of complex metamorphosis Between stages a and b, the embryonic stage of an ametabolous metamorphosis. This movie leaves viewers without the basic knowledge necessary to form their own views. 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, Nature 401:447-452.

These three categories of metamorphosis show the broad outlines of how complex metamorphosis like that seen in butterflies could evolve from simpler processes seen in other insects. Researchers addressing this transition note that the earliest stages of holometabolous insects strongly resemble the embryonic forms of ametabolous and hemimetabolous insects. Their research suggests that early insect forms like the caterpillar originated when embryonic insects had to hatch out of the egg before development completed due to inadequate food resources in the eggs yolk. This hypothesis generates powerful predictions, which scientists continue Declaring metamorphosis to evaluate. Simply declaring, as Nelson and Gauger do, that the entire a miracle involving a matter of metamorphosis is a miracle involving a supernatural intellisupernatural intelligent gent agent does nothing to advance science. Such an entity would, of course, be capable of anything, which means theres no observation which agent does nothing to would let us evaluate the claim either to falsify it or to validate it. Beadvance science cause intelligent design creationism cannot be scientifically tested, it is not a scientific hypothesis, and it is inappropriate to attempt to present intelligent design creationism and evolution as scientific equals. Beauty: Paul Nelson says, There may well be in butterflies aspects of beauty that are 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. The processes driving them are an active field of research, since they serve important evolutionary functions: scaring away predators, attracting mates, fending off rivals, and hiding the insect from predators. The movie ignores these factors to focus 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 the maggots 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 glosses over the profound logical flaws in their argument. In particular, we should note that the larval forms of butterflies and moths often cause significant economic harm. Dr. Tom Royer, an agricultural entomologist at Oklahoma State University, points out that army cutworms can destroy up to 30% of a field of wheat in a bad year, and estimates that 5-10% of Oklahomas crops are destroyed by these and other caterpillars in a given year. Before the advent of transgenic corn and cotton crops which produce their own pesticides three quarters of corn fields and nearly every cotton field required pesticide treatment Butterfly larvae can destroy up to 30% of a against damage by butterfly or moth larvae. For wheat, sorghum, and canola Oklahomas major crops Royer field of wheat. 5-10% of Oklahomas crops estimates, aphids and lepidopterans [butterflies and are destroyed by caterpillars in a given year moths] are the major pests. Surely the fact that butterflies spend most of their lives as major, economically harmful pests does not speak to human-centered design of metamorphosis.
Joshua Rosenau Today, 4:21 PM Added Text Joshua Rosenau Today, 4:21 PM Added Text Joshua Rosenau Today, 4:21 PM Replaced: were

Migration: The migration of monarch butterflies is far afield from the question of metamorphosis, and has no obvious relevance to the film. It should be noted that none of the scientists interviewed about his own work, whether on monarch migrations or butterfly metamorphosis,0 was subsequently quoted adopting the creationist views advocated in the movies closing mo-

ments.