William Lane Craig is a narcissistic sociopath.

[Amarok]

Actually, I have this problem with evolution, as well.

Very much of it represents a narrative.  For example, where did eyes come from?  The narrative is that photosensitivity leads to this or that (totally hypothetical) advantage in early micro-organism, and then this and that development was suited to this or that environment.

Because that's were the evidence points

It's all plausible, and I very much believe in evolution.  However, when the ability to establish a plausible narrative is taken in lieu of actual evidence showing how and why eyes evolved, or experimental results in a lab, then we have to be VERY careful to keep that differentiation clear, right from the beginning.  That's not always done sufficiently, in my opinion.

We have multiple lines of evidence reaching this very conclusion so this is nothing like Craig's empty armchair fapping

---

Another example is the evolution of mind.  The evolutionary narrative is that as creatures grew more complex, there was an evolutionary advantage to their being able to experience their environment-- so mind, of course, is a result of natural evolutionary processes.  What they don't explain, even a little bit, is what about the Universe allows for the existence of mind, or how it is that this or that system becomes capable of sustaining it.  When a p-zombie is functionally equivalent to a subjective agent, then you need more than a nice story to explain the existence of subjective agency.

No you really don't

---

As for Craig-- I've seen him establish the philosophical basis of the God idea, and THEN when not challenged at that stage, go on to explain why the Biblical Christian God is the most likely candidate.  That's quite the bait and switch.  But up to that point, I think he makes the right kind of arguments, and quite well

Craig has produced nothing of the kind .