Insectman Home
Contact Us
My Testimony
Our Links
Get Saved
Exodus Mandate
The Lie: Evolution


A Big Blue Blunder

By Karl Priest (10-21-08)

Jack Woodall is the director of the Nucleus for the Investigation of Emerging Infectious Diseases in the Institute of Medical Biochemistry at Brazil's Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. He is undoubtedly an intelligent and educated man. Yet, in an essay entitled “Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A Butterfly Explodes the Theory”* he provides a prime example of evolutionist ignorance.

All hope of credibility is lost in the first paragraph when, in describing the butterfly life-cycle, Woodall credits a chrysalis with redesigning its body. (1) In his second paragraph he cancels the premise of his article by affirming that a seemingly poor design can actually be “a very efficient system.” (2) Then, to further reveal the anemic arsenal available to true believers in evolutionism, he tries to claim the Large Blue butterfly was not intelligently designed because he (Mr. Woodall) would not have designed it to function as it does. (3)

Mr. Woodall must have some intellectual issues. First of all—what he would do in personally designing a butterfly is a ridiculous point. When he can bring a butterfly to life, I will be inclined to listen to his ideas about how he would design it to successfully survive. Secondly, Woodall seems to have missed the obvious fact that the Large Blue has survived just fine for thousands (in his case—millions) of years.

The Big Blue may go extinct just as millions of other animals have done. Extinction is devolution and devolution is science.

Mr. Woodall made a big blue blunder with his pathetic attempt to discredit Intelligent Design theory.

(1) At first sight, nothing could seem less intelligent than the design of a flying insect. From an egg laid in or on a food supply, it hatches into a slow-moving eating machine that keeps outgrowing its skin, so that it has to molt every few days. At the moment of molting, it is extremely vulnerable to predators and parasites. Then, inexplicably, it stops moving and grows a hard shell, inside which it completely redesigns its body from square one, to emerge into a thing with wings that launches itself into hundreds of cubic miles of atmosphere in search of a mate, and a food plant, with nothing to guide it but a few stray molecules - pheromones and plant odors - blowing in the wind.

(2) The fact is, however, that this is a very efficient system for spreading the genes of that species around the landscape, and for locating food plants that would take an Earth-bound caterpillar days to find by dint of much hard crawling. OK, that complicated life cycle seems an intelligent creation in the end. But what can we make of the further complications that led the Large Blue butterfly (Maculinea arion) to extinction in Britain?

(3) So here you have an insect that depends for its very existence on a fragile chain of circumstances that is easily broken by bad weather, changes in exposure to grazing due to human intervention and disease, loss of its unique food plant, and loss of its protector ant species. If I were to design such a silly system I'd at least choose the most abundant, hardy species of ant to host my caterpillars, and ensure that they could feed on other plants beside thyme, and at other stages than the bud. To me, the case of the Large Blue is conclusive disproof of the theory of intelligent design.

*,390,Intelligent-Design-The-Clincher-A-butterfly-explodes-the-theory,Jack-Woodall,page1#11647 and