These aren’t in Reasonable Faith, but there are two lines Craig uses constantly in his debates that are worth noting. Both are generally used as part of the Kalam argument, but have nothing to do with it logically. The first is his frequent use of the rhetorical question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (see, for example, his debate with Massimo Pigliucci).
Craig may as well be saying, “There’s something rather than nothing. You can’t explain that.” (By the way, is there an easy way to post quickmeme pictures on my blog? Or do I just have to download and reupload?) And it’s a particularly stupid (implied) argument for the existence of God, because God is a rather significant something.
Modern science contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, contradicts what Christians long believed before geology and Darwin, contradicts what many Christians still believe. There’s nothing “incredible” about finding one superficial similarity in spite of otherwise massive disconfirmation, because if you look hard enough you can find superficial similarities between anything.
I think Craig’s other arguments are in an important sense no better than O’Reilly’s, but these arguments are obviously no better than O’Reilly’s. It think this is telling, because the fact that he makes such obvious blunders makes it less surprising that even his most respected argument (Kalam) contains similar blunders, just better concealed.