Yes, and those who in someway challenge the Darwininian dogma are accused of building strawman arguments and knocking them down. The accusers are the grass artisans. They place unspoken words into the statements of the reluctant.
The simple question to be asked is how any findings in this experiment would have been accepted as evidence against Darwininianism? Had the experiment failed miserably to do anything it would not have made it out the door. If it had caused an arm to form, the experiment would have been marched out in fanfare as definitive "proof" of Darwininianism. In any case, using the Darwininians own definition, what was done was not science. It had no stated null hypothesis to accept or reject, thus being unfalsifiable it becomes non-science.(by the definition of Darwininians)
This experiment is a farce from the word go. It is shameful that public money should be wasted this way. The purposes of the three genes mentioned here are well known. The methods are nothing new, gene expression research is the most common biological research being done nowadays. It cannot be called developmental research because they were dealing with grown chickens not with chicken eggs. Chickens regrow feathers and all they showed is how some of the genes involved affect such growth. It should also be noted that these genes which are used in development also continue to be used throughout life. This shows the reuse of DNA code quite well and the marvel of DNA which keeps mixing and remixing different genes, proteins, and DNA at different times in order to perform the enormously complex functions needed for life.