Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Over at UD the intellectually unrigorous Sal Cordova has a post arguing that Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection somehow disproves Darwinism (whatever that is). In the process he tries to use Michael Lynch's new book as evidence. Sal argues that, well, who knows what Sal is arguing, but it seems to be that natural selection prevents evolution and that there is a fundamental contradiction between Fisher and Darwin. Anyway, here is Lynch on Intelligent Design:
However, there is a related and equally disturbing issue: the legitimization of intellectual laziness. Have a problem explaining something? Forget about it: the Designer made it that way. Any place for diversity of opinion as to who/what the Designer is/was? The ID literature makes it very clear that there is no room for scientific discourse on that. Think I'm exaggerating? To get a good idea of what IDers would have the face of science look like, check out the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.html). Two factors have facilitated the promotion of ID. First, IDers like to portray evolution as being built entirely on an edifice of darwinian natural selection. This caricature of evolutionary biology is not too surprising. Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity. Building a straw man based on natural selection alone makes it easy for opponents to poke holes in evolution. [emphasis mine - afarensis] But features of the genome, such as genomic parasites or non-coding introns, which aren't so evolutionarily favourable (nor obviously 'intelligent' innovations), can be more readily explained by models that include random genetic drift and mutation as substantial evolutionary forces.
Intelligent design or intellectual laziness?
Michael Lynch
NATURE|Vol 435|19 May 2005
Comments
Quite. But you don't expect Sal to admit something like that do you? Or if he does, I can guarantee the phrase "edge of evolution" will crop up.
Incidentally, Sal contradicts his own argument with one of his footnotes, and then when I pushed him in the comments, showed that his understanding of Fisher's fundamental theorem wasn't as bad as in the main text, where he got it totally wrong.
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 5, 2008 11:17 AM
These two sentences are just ripe for creationist quote-mining.
Posted by: Wes | April 5, 2008 7:38 PM
Michael Lynch wrote: "Two factors have facilitated the promotion of ID" but he leaves out an important third. We let ID-iots off the hook by never demanding that the buggers actually define what they mean by 'god'. As I see it this is the major weakness in their argument and we should exploit it. We should demand they accept their god is a nasty SOB. He demanded the Israelites commit genocide against all sorts of neighbouring people for a start.
Posted by: terryt | April 6, 2008 12:48 AM