As big of a tool as Craig usually is, this is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read or heard from him. I don't really understand all the hate.
He is right to state the science is in no position to say that evolution was not directed by God. He does not say that this proves
the Christian God, just that science cannot rule it out. In response to the question he is answering, this is technically correct. I also thought that this was well said:
...when the evolutionary biologist says that the mutations that lead to evolutionary development are random, the meaning of the word “random” is not “occurring by chance.” Rather it means “irrespective of their usefulness to the organism.”
He goes on with this paragraph:
Now this is hugely significant! The scientist is not, despite the impression given by popularizers on both sides of the divide, making the presumptuous philosophical claim that biological mutations occur by chance and, hence, that the evolutionary process is undirected or purposeless. Rather he means that mutations do not occur for the benefit of the host organism. If we take “random” to mean “irrespective of usefulness to the organism,” then randomness is not incompatible with direction or purpose. For example, suppose that God in His providence causes a mutation to occur in an organism, not for the benefit of the organism, but for some other reason (say, because it will produce easy prey for other organisms that He wants to flourish or even because it will eventually produce a fossil that I will someday find, which stimulates my interest in palaeontology, so that I embark upon the career God had in mind for me). In such a case, the mutation is both purposeful and random.
Which, while fanciful, is at least technically correct. This kind of purpose is not ruled out by evolutionary theory. The point he is making without knowing it is that life and intelligence arising completely purposelessly is not ruled out by evolutionary theory either.
He is actually REFUTING Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe here.
His response to question 2 is again, technically correct, within the confines of his unfalsifiable fantasy world.
Not the worst I've seen from Craig by a long shot.
But seriously, is that the best photo of him they can find?