The wackiness of AiG's "peer reviewed" 'journal' has surprised even me. Take a look:
Because one is tangible and the other intangible, the physical and metaphysical are generally treated separately. But this dichotomy is illogical; at the very least it is inconsistent with reality, for the two are inseparable. A basic introduction to the principle issues in quantum physics is provided to stress two points: (1) our physical reality consists mostly of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and information; and (2) the metaphysical implications of nonlocality as evidenced by studies in entanglement, quantum teleportation, and zero-point energy. Then the impossibility of three critical events is addressed: the spontaneous ex nihilo appearance of an exploding mass via its own nonexistent energy, the spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic nonlife, and the spontaneous generation of a complex metaphysical reality from physical matter. This leads to an apology for the necessity of a creator.
Finally, a theory is set forth that reconciles inorganic, organic, and animated matter with the metaphysical realities of both the creator and the created. By coupling the metaphysical implications of quantum physics with the biblical understanding of God's attributes, the thesis is set forth that our immediate physical reality--consisting of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and information--is basically a hologram depiction of God's intent. God spoke and it was so. Since creation, God's Spirit has continued to energize and interact with the universe in an entangled nature at the quantum level. Similarly, the individual metaphysical reality (the spirit) of each animated being interacts with its individual corporal body via this same entangled nature at the subatomic level.
Man being created in the image of God, freewill, the existence of evil, and redemption are also addressed. And finally, because man is a special creature created in God's image, it follows that man, merely by intent, has within him the ability, at least in a limited capacity, to cause change to his environment, this holographic reality; thus biblical healings and miracles occur. This concept could also provide an explanation for certain other human-generated phenomenon.
And look at this incredibly hypocritical statement:
There currently exist a number of people who believe the Great Pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens to serve as navigational devices--an outlandish claim to be sure, but actually no more unwarranted than is Darwin's evolution. One could argue their evidence and reasoning is as solid as that of Darwinism. What if a group of archaeologists were to take up this hypothesis and say: "Because some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs seem to speak of bright lights and beings from the sky who taught technology; and because some of the giant stones, perfectly placed hundreds of feet high, weigh as much as 20 tons; we have concluded that the Great Pyramids of Egypt were constructed by aliens; and unless this can be proved incorrect we shall accept it as fact." No one in their right mind would take them seriously. Yet this is exactly what Darwin's proponents have done. From very sparse, selective, and controversial evidence at best, they have set forth the argument of a noncomplex universe in which simple life-forms slowly evolved into more advanced life-forms; and they expect it to be accepted as fact unless it can be proven wrong.
It boggles my mind how hypocritical this writer is. The Alien Theorists have the same evidence that Creationists do: Both argue that something is just too complex to be made by nature (made by man, in the case of the pyramid) therefore they must seek an outlandish explanation. Neither explanation is testable AT ALL; while standard alternatives to these wild ass guesses ARE TESTABLE. Let's give an example: We can't make any predictions or in any way test the alien theory of the pyramids. But the alternative, that the pyramids were built by limestone blocks cast in place, is testable.
Now let's turn it around: Is there any way we can test creationism? We can falsify a global flood, and a young earth/universe, but is there any way that we could possibly falsify creationism? I'd love to hear what the creationists have to say about proving it false, because as far as I know, any time creationism is tested to any extent, it fails.
On the other hand, evolution is definetly falsifiable. For instance: Let's suppose that genetics/biochemistry indicated human beings were more closely related to bullfrogs than African Apes (click the link, Duane Gish actually said this). That would extremely inconsistent with the notion of common descent. In fact, it would falsify common descent altogether. No way around it. On the other hand, that's not what turned out: Humans are more closely related to African Primates, especially the chimpanzee, than any other living thing on earth.
Let's take another example: What if we changes in the fossil record were way faster than observable changes today? That would be an excellent way to prove evolution false. Fortunately, rates of change have been observed that can account for even the fastest fossil record transitions.
These are just a few examples, for more, see the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.