Well, I think for this discussion; a couple of theological definitions need to be understood.
1. "Free will" as opposed to "independent volition".
Theologically speaking, the concept of "free will" implies decisions made not encumbered by sin or a fallen nature. Post Adam and Eve's transgression; no entity (human or angelic agent) except Jesus Christ truly has "free will".
Even "elect angels" were sealed unto their state of continued obedience because of the completion of the atonement. It seems to me that until the point Christ rose from the dead, obedient angels could still freely choose to disobey God.
Even animal kingdom creatures actions are driven by living in a fallen world. They too can make choices which are not fully the driven product of instinct. These choices can be "apparently moral" to human observation, though the creatures have no process of cognitively contemplating "moral choice"; for they are not created in the image of God. Creatures though can and often do choose what is "good", because being life forms possessed of the "breath of life"; which coming from God is inherently good (possessing "good moral fabric") because God is good.
Now, all creatures possessing the cognitive capacity to make decisions independent of the desires of other beings possess an "independent volition". (They possess the ability to obey or disobey according to their status of "created in God's image" or not. That is not theologically the same thing as "free will" though.
Independent volition in humans can choose moral appropriateness as opposed to moral evil. Moral appropriateness as opposed to moral evil is what's judged by the law; both written revelation (Scripture) as well as conscience, in which law is dictated by reality of being created in God's image. Man intuitively knows the law regardless of whether or not individuals have the Scripture, because all humanity is created in God's image.
Being judged by the law is what causes condemnation because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". (This is codified in the Old Testament.) And this is why in fallen humanity there is no such thing as "free will" theologically speaking. "The wages of sin is death" and the law meets out those wages based on the moral decisions made by the independent volition.
This is what accounts for the theological difference between "totally depraved" an "depraved totally".
"Totally depraved" means the impact of sin and a fallen nature drives all decisions of the independent volition.
"Depraved totally" would mean that all possible moral choices would be made in the direction of the fullest extent of moral evil that creature could possibly manifest.
Man's fall was "total", as in he can not restore his own "free will". Yet he maintains the ability to decide the extent of moral transgression he is willing to commit.
Satan on the other hand is "depraved totally" as in he will only choose the maximum amount of evil he's capable of inflicting. This is the manifestation of angels (particularly fallen ones in Satan's example) not being created in the image of God.
This is a different state than humanity; whom all individual humans bear the potential of being one of God's elect; that election being secured by the atonement provided through Christ. Of course no human deserves redemption, for all have sinned. Yet the only way to be redeemed out from under God's wrath for disobedience to the law; is in Christ having decided (upon God's own free will) to atone for that individual's sin. That decision was made among the members of the Godhead prior to ever creating anything. This is why the "elect" are "predestine" to that election by the "foreknowledge" of God. It's not that God "foresaw" their "free will" to choose. That is not what predestination means. The "foreknowledge" of God is the determination of who would be atoned for, not based on how well they obeyed the law, but solely based on God's free choice.
2. The nature of God:
Now God by the nature of what God is as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal and eternal only needs to determine prior to creation through "foreknowledge" whom He will redeem.
Because He's omnipotent and omnipresent, He does not need to "write a timeline" of every detail that would happen in the cosmos. (Hyper calvinism). Nor does he need to "micromanage" the choices of all creatures; simply because He is omnipotent to superimpose His will in real time, where need be to accomplish His will.
God is inherently omniscient in that as immortal, He is outside of time. Thus another reason He doesn't need to "micro-plan" the outcome of time prior to creation.
Molinism fails in its account of the power of God, in Craig's rightful attempt to explain why God is not responsible for man's sin.
White's portrayal of Calvinism fails in his presentation of the presence of God. In his missing the context of the theological definition of "free will" as opposed to "independent volition"; White makes God accountable for human sin.
3. What is "evil"?
I think Craig did well in his explanation of "natural evil" being different than "moral evil". (I'd use the term "natural calamity" instead of "natural evil" as the word "evil" implies a moral decision making process that assigns the motive of wickedness to the action.)
For when God sends "natural calamity"; that is a process of His justice, even in the sense that those who've not committed "moral evil" are still subject to "natural calamity" because "natural calamity" is used by God to accomplish His purposes. Natural calamity doesn't necessarily befall individuals on account of their personal guilt. Sometimes it does; but just because natural calamity befalls, is not an indication of the commission of personal moral evil that predicated the befalling of that specific natural calamity.
God does not maliciously strike "random" events on unsuspecting creatures. All natural calamity serves God's purpose. Although moral evil committed by the creatures does not serve God's purposes; He is capable of "working all things to the good ... of those called according to His purposes". So thus God has only "allowed" "moral evil" on account of Him creating creatures who (like Himself) possess an independent volition to act.
Now where did "evil" come from? That is a different theological question. But "moral evil" as manifest in the created world, had no acting agent until creatures who possessed independent volition to (at the onset "freely choose) to be corrupted by that evil, were created.
Personally I think "evil" came into existence as a reaction to God's creating a universe. For "to every action is an equal and opposite reaction". This is one of the most basic principles in action in this current cosmos. For some conceptional existence of "evil" had to be present to order for Lucifer (followed by Adam) to freely choose disobedience. But once that choice was made, the ability to freely make choices subsequently disappeared. Thus, this is what constituted "the fall". "The fall" was one of the consequence of Adam's choice to disobey.
