Nothing magical about it, it's a natural, logical consequence of a large body like the moon rotating as it orbits. Tidal forces and friction will eventually slow it's rotation until it is tidally locked as it is now. It's all very simple and easy to understand, actually.
Last I checked it was absolutely an anomaly, with no other observable or observed examples. We can observe things that appear to have their own moons, but none are "locked" by magic. Of course you can speculate that that is due to lack of liquid water, but this is a wild speculation (on top of centuries of them).
Why would I speculate that the lack of water is a reason? I never said any such thing, please refrain from such obvious straw-man arguments.
As for there being no other examples, there are. Mercury is tidally locked with the sun.
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked.
All the large moons of Jupiter are tidally locked.
In fact, it looks like tidally locked moons is quite common, not at all an anomaly. Please cite your sources if you are going to insist otherwise. Where exactly are you checking?
I'm not aware of any modern astronomers who have a problem with tidally locked bodies and how they become that way. Which astronomers are you referring to?
It's not about the tidal locking, it's about the impact craters. There would be expected to be far fewer (especially large ones) as the face (presumed to be riddled with them) is always towards the earth. So the musing goes. Astronomy is (largely, not entirely) pseudoscience, as you know.
I asked which modern astronomers are claiming this, do you have any names or sources?
As for the impact craters, are you aware of how far the moon is from the Earth? At 250,000 miles away, the Earth would only block a tiny, tiny fraction of any asteroids coming at the near side. This is only a problem if you don't understand the scale and angles involved.
Again, please cite your source of modern astronomers claiming the near side of the moon should have less impact craters due to the Earth getting in the way. Where are you reading this?