interesting article. You’re right, it’s sad he didn’t live to release and interpret his work. It would be interesting to see if his conclusions would match those of his interpreters, though I wouldn’t imagine they would be far apart or in complete disagreement. And i certainly realize the use of words like fraud or hoax or emotionally charged. Perhaps Kettlewell was guilty moreso of ignorance rather than malicious intention to deceive. It certainly wasn’t creationists alone who noticed the problem areas of his experiment. Many different proponents of evolution voiced their concerns, including Majerus, which of course led him to further the work and attempt to resolve these issues. Putting aside the several assumptions made by the reviewers, one particular item stuck out to me. The moths resting on the tree trunks. I didn’t see any serious attempt made to explain why, in at least part of his experiment, a significantly larger number of moths were found to be resting on tree trunks, when virtually every other review or observation of the moths noticed few if any moths resting on tree trunks, unless of course, pinned there. Why the huge discrepancy? Usually anomalies like this are critiqued, or, of course, if helpful, retained. If harmful, discarded. Were there other factors involved here that could have also affected other outcomes.