He seemed to think he had scored points of logic when, to anyone of any intelligence, he obviously had done nothing of the kind.

The point of such debates for someone like Craig is not to convert opponents, not to have a point-by-point discussion with an opponent in an attempt to explore ideas. The point of such debates is rather like playing some kind of game. You win by managing to continually put your views and not being diverted by your opponent. It's a game of perseverence, of endurance. You win if you are not made to look absolutely like a fool. Craig is very good at that game. It's also not about points of logic. It's about points of emotion. If Craig manages to make part of the audience think that science is just not providing answers, or goes too far beyond common sense, that is a victory for him.

The problem with such debates is that in a sense Craig has already won. He's won because we give theology credibility by engaging in debate. He's won because we give him a platform for putting across ideas that are really of no importance to anyone but theologians. He's won because a senior scientist apparently considers his arguments important enough to challenge.