read the aig article. It was anything but an attack job. Well reasoned, calm, even sympathetic towards Kettlewell. It notes the deficiencies in his experiment, deficiencies first noted by evolutionists, not creationists, and mentions both Majerus’s role in exposing Kettlewell’s mistakes and the formers own experiment, a supposed retry on the latter’s work. (I might point out that it was not a “repeat” of Kettlewells work. It corrected and changed a number of parameters, so it in no way vindicates the previous work). Then aig concludes with the obvious, the experiment shows natural selection and microevolution, two processes they accept.