William Lane Craig is touted as the ace defender of the Christian worldview. He is touted as being the philosopher and apologist, par excellence. To my knowledge, he has never lost a debate with an atheist on the question of the existence of God. He is a remarkably intelligent and accomplished man.
On the question of Genesis and the view that the earth is relatively young, around 6,000 years old, Craig says this about those pastors and Christians who subscribe to such a view:
Yes, I’ve seen a comparable statistic that says that over 50% of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Now when you think about that, Kevin, that is just hugely embarrassing. That over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is only around 10,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it’s nonsense, and yet this is the view that the majority of our pastors hold. It’s really quite shocking when you think about it.Craig thinks that anyone who adopts a view of Genesis based on a simple grammatico-historical interpretation of that text is an embarrassment to Christianity. Why? Because scientifically, such a view is absolute nonsense apparently. Why is it scientifically nonsense to accept the account of Genesis as six literal days, but not scientifically nonsense to acknowledge that the universe was created by God ex nihilo? It is because Craig wants to employ science is a most subjective manner. He wants to apply the laws of science to Genesis 1-11 but not to the fundamental view of Christianity, that God created from nothing. But Craig cannot have it both ways. The same scientific principles that assert that a young earth view is nonsense also assert that the idea of God creating the universe from nothing is also nonsense.
To leave off Safarti's reaction to Craig on Genesis, I want to point out a couple of other views I find even more disturbing. The first one is Craig's belief that people can be redeemed outside of the gospel. Craig has declared that men who recognize that there is some power, some divine being behind creation and who also live according to the moral law within can be saved apart from the gospel. If they do those two things, God will not send them to hell. Doing so would make God a monster. Now, to be fair, Craig says he doesn't think this really happens, but it could happen and it may have happened. This position denies that exclusive claims of Christian theism that one must call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.
Finally, Craig's philosophy leads him to a view of God that is even more problematic and that is the view that God has middle knowledge. Craig defaults to this view as a way of explaining how presence of evil in the world can be congruent with the existence of the God described in Scripture. The whole idea is that God has created the best of all possible worlds. This world represents the best God could do. What makes it the best world? Apparently it is the best world because it is the world in which the highest number of people would believe in God. The argument is not a theological argument. It is purely one borne out of philosophy. In fact, there is nothing theological about it. It rests upon the presupposition that the highest good in human creation is the freedom of the will. Above all else, God was seeking to preserve that aspect of humanity. This is really the best He could do.
William Lane Craig is first and foremost a philosopher. His views continue to evolve into views that are more and more disturbing and less and less biblical. If you are interested in defending the faith, I would recommend Answers in Genesis, Cliff McManis' new book on Christian Apologetics, Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, and Scott Oliphint. I would steer clear of philosophers like William Lane Craig. They do more harm and cause more confusion than the good they contribute. That is my humble opinion.