You have to deal with a possible pay wall to get at it, but here's a taste of what Albert serves up, re: Krauss. With emphasis added.
He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” and he does a good deal of railing about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right. Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now.
Topped off with Albert mentioning that Krauss' entire approach to the conversation - and really, the Cultists of Gnu's move in its entirety - is petty and wrong-headed. In the New York Times.
It's been a pleasant weekend.