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 
Wow, they must have been taking censorship lessons from Uncommon Descent! Click on this link and you get the following:
STORY TEMPORARILY NOT AVAILABLE
and:
New Scientist has received a complaint about the contents of this story. It has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience
Fortunately, the story has been preserved for posterity here
The piece is called "How to spot a hidden religious agenda" and was written by Amanda Gefter. Here is a taste:
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.
Coming so closely on the heals of their "Darwin was wrong" cover one has to wonder what is going on at the New Scientist? They receive a complaint and pull a story from the web? Seriously?
(Hat tip to PZ).
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Hey, if I don't like their review of OpenLab08, can I complain and expect they remove it?
Posted by: Coturnix | March 15, 2009 3:43 PM
Quite possibly. If it was about defamation, they could have been facing a law suit. So, they pull it down immediately, and then decide whether it should be removed or edited.
One wonders who complained, though. Did someone complain that calling Denyse a blogger was an insult to the blogosphere?
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 15, 2009 3:45 PM
Bob FTW!
Posted by: Coturnix | March 15, 2009 3:55 PM
I just checked my hard copy -- the (calmly written and reasonable) column about spotting religious bias is still in there. I suddenly see another reason to have dead-tree publication; it's much harder to make all the copies disappear.
Posted by: Laura J | March 15, 2009 4:27 PM
Bob - I nominate that for comment of the week! Oh, wait, wrong venue...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | March 15, 2009 4:37 PM
Off-topic, but there is big news at UD - DaveScot has been kicked out! Go to the usual places (not UD) for details.
This is an historic day for the blogosphere.
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 15, 2009 4:46 PM
I don't see anything even remotely actionable unless calling a creationist that horrible moniker "creationist" is grounds for a defamation of character lawsuit. New Scientist really should try and hold its ground. Even with the England's defendant must prove it is true system, I really see no grounds. But then again, I am not a lawyer let alone an English one.
Posted by: a lurker | March 29, 2009 10:30 AM