Given a questionable definition of "Advance", anyway. More below.
On the one hand, we have the fallout from Krauss' book. Atheists outside of the Cult have been piling on - Pigliuicci only being the latest one to argue that Krauss (and, due to his bold endorsement, Dawkins) makes an ass out of himself, hot on the heels of David Albert absolutely shredding Krauss in the New York Times. No, it seems, physics has not dealt a blow to the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question, or the cosmological arguments related to such. Indeed, science is incapable of doing this even in principle.
Krauss' response has been sad. At this point he's been reduced to saying, 'Well, okay, science maybe doesn't show the answer to that question. But I wasn't saying it did! Why would anyone think I was trying to argue that physics gave an answer to the question of why there's something rather than nothing?' The reply has been, summed up: "Anyone who read your book title. Also, Dawkins, who really looks like an idiot if you make this move."
On the other hand, we have the Cult of Gnu doing what they do best: attacking atheists and agnostics who would otherwise be their allies. Bart Ehrman's entire public career has basically been one of being the most visible NT scholar who's been critical of Christian claims about the bible, particularly inerrancy. But, he made the mistake of directly calling out Carrier and - in spite of praising him as being smart and even credentialed - he took the position that Carrier's mythicism isn't credible, and that his arguments for mythicism are bad.
Carrier's response was to absolutely freak out over this, and scream to high heavens that Ehrman's book was rotten, utterly mistaken, and basically attack his credibility as a scholar. Par for the course - Carrier's a drama queen and will ferociously attack anyone who calls him out for making bad arguments. (The sole exception coming to mind is when the McGrews laughed off his attack on their Bayesian arguments for Christ's resurrection. He shut up quickly there.) But then PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne both decided they'd have Carrier's back - and the Cult of Gnu, sensing direction from their leaders, turned against Ehrman en masse.
Apparently, it wasn't enough for the Cult of Gnu to brand themselves with being loud, obnoxious assholes. No, they're trying to pick up the coveted 'suckers' and 'crackpots' titles too.
For anyone who reads this post, this is all probably old news by now. But really, it's a sight to behold, and I recount all this to put it in perspective. Krauss' cock-up was tremendous, and public. He didn't merely make some claim that was just controversial, and thus he can make the move of saying "Well, my opinion may be in the minority, but I still think I'm right." He made a major claim that could be - and was, repeatedly - refuted in a paragraph, and is in damage control mode. Dawkins seems to just be keeping his mouth shut, because his idiotic foreword made him out to be the biggest loser in a very public exchange.
At the same time Coyne and Myers - pretty much the most prominent Cult of Gnu leadership online - have hitched their cart to Carrier's horse, and have goaded NT scholars (atheist and agnostic scholars no less) into spinning around and giving Carrier, and by extension themselves, a very public spanking. They could have simply ducked the entire conversation, and their decision to enter into it on Carrier's side is breathtaking. You couldn't ask for a better way to damage their reputations short of their coming out for homeopathy or Raelians.
I'm trying to figure out what they're going to do for a followup act. Maybe Myers will decide to come to the defense of Alex Rosenberg's book, endorse it entirely, and insist that the claims of the book are all scientific rather than philosophical.