Regarding Turek's conclusion:

The panda's thumb bit refers to the "just good enough" principle of evolution. It is perfect for its environment, because it has been molded to fit it. It's not "better" because it doesn't need to be. This has nothing whatsoever to do with design or purpose. Cancer and SIDS are faults unless the purpose of the designer is to inflict suffering.

I wonder if he actually read the whole book...

"You don't need the Bible to know right from wrong"
A) Then why was the Bible even written?
B) But there are certain evil actions that require faith.

"There is a standard beyond ourselves"
Yes. But it is not divine. It is due to the universal fact that we are mortal and capable of suffering and happiness, and that it is impossible for any of us to live and act without affecting one another. This is what society is. We have to come to some consensus about morality because we have no choice but to live in a society.

"He has to borrow objective morality from Christianity"
No, Christianity borrows its morality from evolution. We evolved moral standards because they're beneficial to our survival and growth.

"Where did those come from in an atheistic worldview?"
Not God. That's all that atheism supposes, that they don't come from God, at least the theistic God. ANYWHERE ELSE works, and most of the things he mentions can be explained by natural means (consciousness etc).

"He rebels against the divine dictatorship"
He WOULD rebel IF God existed.
"Christopher in effect wants to replace God"
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

"We're something beyond chemicals"
Well, then this 'something' should be detectable, because it affects us, and/or we affect it. There is no place in the brain where energy appears out of nowhere or disappears. Information does not enter the brain from any immaterial source. Consciousness is absolutely confined to the brain.

I can't really make sense of the rest of his conclusion.

Hitchens obviously believes that being rude, cutting off response, avoiding the answering of questions, making snide comment, taking cheap shots for audience approval, demeaning his opponent and those who don't agree with him and arrogance are enough to "win" a debate. It's a shame that a man who may be as intelligent as he believes he is, didn't take the opportunity to really impart that knowledge in a precice, concise and logical way to make his points and give a real opportunity for dialog and discussion that could inform those us that perhaps are not, (especially in his mind), as educated on the content as he is. Christopher seems to think that when people act on their free will and make life horrible for others, that shouldn't be the case. If God doesn't exist as Christopher insists, then how could this nonexistent God be of any consequence to man in any way? If God doesn't exist, then how could those who he calls "religious" possibly be impacted by anything other than those chemical, naturalistic, materialistic causes for morality that are caused by nature. And if that is truly the case, then the "religious" man is not being driven by their religion, but by the forces of nature and cannot be held accountable any more so than anyother person would be.
Hitchens simply comes across as a pissed off, arrogant psuedo intellect who is so wise that he doesn't have to give real answers to pointed questions (especially when it appears he doesn't have an answer).
There are those of us in the world who really would like to discuss these topics with atheists without all the snide comments, cheap shots, condescension and arrogance.
I have questions that I've thought about for years, I believe atheists might be able to answer. I'm just not up for the negativity I'm seeing here by some.