"no-holds barred atheists" who "want, ever so much, to be secular humanists" yet who say that "Darwin can't have been right about the mechanisms of evolution" and that "there is something wrong - quite possibly fatally wrong - with the theory of natural selection".
It started well: lots of promises and some well written paragraphs, by the time I was half way through I was utterly disappointed and bemused.
The idea seems to be that - when selecting combinations of traits for fitness - Natural Selection can't distinguish between the fitness-traits and those useless traits accidentally bundled up with them, and so Natural Selection can't really be selecting for fitness after all. This seems to be presented as a serious problem for neo-Darwinian models of Evolution which rely on Natural Selection.
I'm surprised the authors didn't point out the more standard understanding of Natural Selection which says that Natural Selection doesn't select traits for fitness at all: it de-selects traits for unfitness, by simply killing off those combinations that are hard to keep.
There are many problems with Neo-Darinianism, but 'selection for fitness' is not one of them, since it has little to do with Natural Selection in the first-place.
I hope no Creationist makes the mistake of using this argument in defence of Creationism: it will be knocked down and be used to undermine Theism’s credibility to the less-than-theologically-aware.
When someone from the opposing 'camp' offers you a free argument to use against your opponents, tread carefully!