On Sept. 19, the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History hosted the state debut of the film “Metamorphosis,” the latest attempt by creationists to pass off superstition as science.

The screening was facilitated by the OU Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Club and the Center for Science and Culture, an organization whose stated goal is “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

The Center for Science and Culture holds that “[intelligent] design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

In the days of the Scopes monkey trial, creationists were open about the unscientific nature of their beliefs. Over the decades, however, increased public understanding of science compelled creationists to adopt secular pretensions in order to seem credible.

In the 1960s, creationism became “creation science.” After the courts ruled that “creation science” was religion rather than science, and therefore could not be taught in public schools, the label was quickly abandoned. It was after this defeat that the scientific façade of creationism was revised to its current form, that of “intelligent design.”

It is intelligent design creationism — that is, creationism as preached by a man in a lab coat rather than a cassock — that the film “Metamorphosis” hopes to propagate at OU.

“Metamorphosis” uses the life cycle of the butterfly as its subject. The first three quarters of the film are devoted to rhapsodizing about how complicated butterflies are. It is not until the final fifteen minutes that the film openly reveals its creationist agenda.

Though the first section of the film features a number of apparently legitimate scientists, the final act is dominated entirely by two people: Ann Gauger and Paul Nelson, both of whom spoke at the screening Monday evening. “Metamorphosis” presents Gauger and Nelson as objective members of the scientific mainstream. In reality, Gauger is a paid employee of a creationist think tank called the Biologic Institute. Nelson was last seen in the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which claimed that the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust.

The film’s central argument, as expressed by its narrator, is that “natural selection cannot succeed by taking large evolutionary leaps. Instead, the process can only move forward through a series of small, incremental steps. ... By its very nature, metamorphosis is an all-or-nothing proposition.”

Unfortunately for the filmmakers, the latter claim can be disproved with only a few minutes’ research. Metamorphosis is not an all-or-nothing proposition; in fact, there are numerous examples of partial metamorphosis in nature. The grasshopper, for instance, grows wings and other features through metamorphosis while its basic body structure remains intact. Mayflies also undergo partial metamorphosis, developing wings but otherwise remaining largely unchanged.

It is entirely plausible that the transition from caterpillar to butterfly began as partial metamorphosis that, through the accumulation of minor genetic variations, evolved into its current dramatic form.

The argument that butterfly metamorphosis disproves evolution is not a new one; it appeared in the Institute for Creation Research publications as early as 1993. Numerous other well-worn arguments are also repeated in “Metamorphosis.”

“If you saw a mechanical device of the sophistication of a butterfly, you would not for a moment hesitate to ascribe that to intelligence,” says Nelson in the film, rehashing an argument made by philosopher William Paley over two centuries ago. The simple rebuttal to this argument is that, if this sophisticated mechanical device (a watch in Paley’s example) were capable of reproducing itself, passing on randomized variations in its blueprint from generation to generation, there would not necessarily be a reason to ascribe its existence to an intelligent designer.

Though “Metamorphosis” hasn’t been much noticed outside of the creationist community, scientists who have viewed it have expressed frustration at its distortions of fact. “Obviously, it’s not objective. It’s not meant to be objective,” said OU professor Mariëlle Hoefnagels, author of “Biology: Concepts & Investigations.” “Its claims ... about natural selection not being able to account for things are not accurate.”

St. Augustine once wrote, “Be on guard against giving interpretations of scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.” This is practical advice, and it’s unfortunate that the people who brought “Metamorphosis” to OU have chosen to ignore it.

Zac Smith is a journalism junior.