William Lane Craig likes to think of himself as an academic, an intellectual and if you believe his fans, 'is regarded by many as one of the worlds leading in Christian Apologetics'. Well that's all fine and dandy until you actually check out William Lane Craigs track record in the peer review literature. See it turns out that William Lane Craig is a champion in academic circles only in the category of publishing 'uncitable junk'.
In academia 'the size of your balls' is largely determined how many papers you've written, and how many citations they pick up: basically how many interesting papers you've written. Turns out William Lane Craigs papers pull in on average about 2 citations, with his top citated work pulling something like a dozen citations. That's an absolutely farcical track record. Personally I find it difficult to see how the man can have such a high opinion of himself when his citations record is so poor. Indeed, by this metric, I've know people who have surpassed the entire contribution of WLCs academic career merely a couple of years after getting a PhD.
Normally I would let this sort of thing slide, apart from the man is such a professional slimeball in his dealings with the likes of Richard Dawkins that I figure his dirty little secret needs a little exposure. I mean with an ego like Craigs, you know the one thing that will cut his ego deeper than any insult is rubbing his nose in his utterly lack-luster citations record.
Personally I think he should hereafter be referred to as William Lane 'Two Citations' Craig, or he gets antsy about his credentials, Dr 'Two Citations' Craig.