I confess: I took a look at what he had to say in regards to the "taxi cab fallacy." Here's something worth noting: I skimmed the article, and a few of his links, but only saw references to debates--it is not clear whether this person has actually read any of WLC's scholarly work. Hence it is not clear whether or not he ought to be taken seriously.
So neopolitan: have you actually read WLC's scholarly work? If so, what have you read? Next question: why do you only reference debates if you have read his scholarly work?
The thing that annoyed me, having listened to a few WLC debates (curse the person who suggested that I listen to Sam Harris, curse also Sam Harris who is responsible for sparking my interest in the WLC juggernaut), was that WLC trots out the same handful of abysmal arguments over and over again and yet his opponents appeared to be unprepared for them. Some did better than others (Maudlin I think was the best, but memory might be failing me), but no-one seemed to anticipate WLC's tactics and come prepared with canned responses to his canned arguments. I might be cynical but it seemed to me that they all just wanted to sell their new books or get a moment in the limelight.
I was particularly incensed by what I saw as the towering stupidity of WLC's moral argument, enough to write something about it (
The modified William Lane Craig moral proof - but originally as a comment at JW Gray's Ethical Realism blog) to place it on a new created blog and then follow it up with commentary on WLC's debating tactics (
Debatable Theism). Then I was off and the next step was to systematically rip apart each of WLC's staple arguments -
as raised in debates.
That I focus on his debates should be of no surprise to anyone. And I have no interest whatsoever in purchasing (or encouraging a local library to purchase) any of his "scholarly" works. I do use his puff pieces on Reasonable Faith from time to time and he is welcome to be as scholarly as he wants there.
If he uses fallacy in his debates, which reach far more people than his "scholarly" work ever will, but he doesn't in his "scholarly" work, then that's his lookout. Being honest with his academic colleagues (if indeed he is) doesn't redress any duplicity with the general public.