From my understanding of the radio interview (from the Today Programme website), it seems that Craig was talking about scientific evidence all along. He said, "There are many of our most basic beliefs for which we have no scientific evidence. For example, the reality of the past, the existence of the external world, the presence of other minds - all of these are what philosophers call 'properly basic beliefs' - they are rational beliefs to hold, but there is no way you could prove that the world was not created, say, five minutes ago with built-in memory traces and food in our stomachs..." And later: "I'm saying there's no way that you could prove scientifically that the past is real..." His point is that the statement that the world was not created five minutes ago is not a scientific claim. (It certainly isn't falsifiable.) But we still believe the claim to be true. However, all this is a bit of a distraction from Craig's point, which is not only (1) that scientific evidence is not necessary to justify a belief, but also (2) that there is abundant evidence for the claim that God exists. I have to say that Wolpert didn't take the debate seriously last night, and presumably chose not to dignify the occasion by engaging with Craig's arguments in any depth. A shame really - I was hoping to hear some powerful counter-arguments to Craig.