Firstly, beautifully well written and well argued piece here by young Madeleine Kirk. A factually accurate summary of the situation.

The plain fact of the matter is this: Dawkins is clearly and undoubtedly being dishonest about his reasons for not debating Craig.

It isnt because it "looks good on Craigs resume", on the contrary, Craig has already trounced Hitchens and Harris in debate. If anything, it would look good on Dawkins resume if he could debate the man who, as Harris says, strikes fear into the heart of many atheists and then beat him.

It isn't because Craig is a "creationist". Dawkins has debated John Lennox numerous times, and plenty of teleevangelists and preachers.

The real reason Dawkins is avoiding Craig is because 1. He doesn't want to get well beaten by a better opponent in a public debate. 2. Dawkins is more about persuading the public than real intellectual engagement. (This is clear from reading the preface to the paperback edition of TGD anyway. The reason Dawkins won't admit this in direct language at this point of the game is that it would lessen his credibility and make many of the general public question him, people who claim to have been convinced by his arguments).

Then again, plenty of people are dishonest about plenty of things so let's not cast the first stone! Plus, Dawkins's ideas will get scrutinised in a highly publicised lecture regardless of whether he turns up to defend them or not. And the whole issue has created an embarrassing situation for him due to the media attention, to the point where it would be arguably be better for him to actually front up and face Craig, even though he would be outclassed and his arguments would get shown up.

Taking an atheist position in regards to the Christian god is plausible.

Christianity is basically neo-Platonism. The Platonic 'forms' are the archetype of all phenomena; all 'things' in the phenomenal realm are, according to Plato, poor copies of the original 'forms' in the intelligible realm. Plato's argument requires that the mind/body split be a 'fact'; that the mind can be separated from the body and only when doing so is it capable of graping the 'forms'. The body is embodied in the phenomenal realm and therefore can only replicate the 'forms' in a poor manner.
Greek scholars - Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine - in the Roman Empire used Plato's argument to justify the 'validity' of Christianity. God gets cast as the creator of the 'forms' and human beings become the poor replicator of the 'forms'; always striving for the archetypal 'good'. The mind/body split is recast as spirit/flesh. Romans 8:4 "Walk not according to the flesh but according to spirit". In Plato-speak that would be, "Walk not according to the phenomenal but according to the intelligible."

Enter Nietzsche. (Although Heraclitus had this idea before Nietzsche).

Nietzsche's argument is that we have no access to a 'intelligible realm' or things in-themselves. There is no mind/body, spirit/flesh split. Our mind is part of the body and is at all times completely embodied within the world of phenomena. There being no intelligible realm or mind/body split wipes out any connection human beings can have to a static reference point for absolute knowledge. Morals, 'truths', and 'understandings' are in constant flux because there is forever relations of power combating each other fighting for 'truth'. For Nietzsche, there is only tension points between warring sides. A 'truth' will only emerge if a dominant power can successfully introject it into the mass. Yet, this 'truth' will only be temporary, for a greater power will eventually destroy it and create its own, and so on ad infinitum.

Refuting the existence of the mind/body split sees Christianity come crashing down.

AJ Phillips is hilarous. He writes

'The guy is an unprincipled sophist and who earns a living by deceiving those who were never going to question what he said to begin with and should be regarded with contempt.'

I don't think you would need to be to honest to see High Priest Dawkins and co would make much more money from their deceit than William Lane Craig. There is certainly a lot more money available for those who jump on the new atheist faith movement or the global warming movement than a Professor from university exposing the lies of this new movement. Just ask Al Gore or our recent Aussie of the year. The new atheist movement also allows you to enjoy your guilt free life no matter how perverse. They detest the fact that they will face judgement one day and have refused the forgiveness God has offered to their sinful lives. Craig's attackers who dishonestly claim the world came from nothing are certainly the dishonest ones not those willing to think rationally.

Dawkins' proposition does not stand up to close analysis. He shows that he is hypocritical. He rubbishes God and intelligent design. But he believes in that god, CHANCE. He attributes CHANCE to be the cause of the original formation of cells in the sterile environment, and then the explanation for the evolution of those cells into all new species. Of course, this 'process' involved cell multiplication, development of the circulatory system needed for survival, sight, smell, hearing, digestive system, reproductive system , the evolution of new species, human intellect, orderly behaviour, etc.

Aristocrat:
<There being no intelligible realm or mind/body split wipes out any connection human beings can have to a static reference point for absolute knowledge. Morals, 'truths', and 'understandings' are in constant flux because there is forever relations of power combating each other fighting for 'truth'>

If this is true then it applies equally to empiricism, whose findings are processed by the same mind that confabulates all the other nonsense. Empirical experience, despite scientists' best efforts, is mediated by the same software that rationalises cultural/psychological values. If we are to place absolute faith in the sensual experience that the subjective/acculturated mind transcribes/rationalises, what is our rationale for dismissing our psychological/spiritual/impressionistic convictions? In other words, how or why is it that we should put our faith in the evidence of our crude and compromised physical senses, which is vetted by the same "mind" that also conceives "independently" of sensual input, and yet dismiss that mind's intangible convictions out of hand as delusion?
There used to be a bias in favour of supernaturalism, and now there's a bias in favour of naturalism. Empiricism is absolutely dependent on the body/mind split. Modern science is Cartesian!
I hasten to reiterate that this is not my rationale for faith, but for scepticism.
The far more important question is, "what state of material affairs does my ideological position serve?" And neither side is asking that!

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
I actually ended up buying a copy of, "The God
Delusion," by Richard Dawkins. And quite enjoyed
reading it. I did not get the impression that he
was setting himself up as some sort of "Guru,"
or that he wanted to convert anyone. I found his
book informative and brilliantly argued. And
BTW - I'm a Catholic, (probably not a good one).
Hawkins did not convert
me but as I said - I enjoyed readintg his book very much.
I particularly liked his list of "ten commandments."

I also have bought and read - "Believ ers: Does Australian
Catholicism have a future?" by Paul Collins. And I enjoyed
that very much as well. We should all keep open minds
on a variety of subjects - including religion. How else
will we learn about the choices we have in life And
which ones to make?