I'm skimming through the article, I'll read it in full later. But so far he's just using God of the gaps "Science doesn't know how the universe began, so it was god" and some rather dumb assumptions, or coming to conclusions that are logical without the need of god, but then ignoring them in favor of assumptions that do require an intelligent god. At one point he says either the universe is infinitely old are there are an infinite number of universes, and then says "well we can't prove there are infinite universes, and the universe isn't infinitely old, so it must be god". Which is still effectively a god of the gaps way of looking at it. String theory suggests a multiverse and alot of theoretical physics is moving in the direction of there being an infinite number of universes. Provable? Not right now. But I guess that is enough for God to exist.
His assertion that at some point our universe needs a non mechanistic free will agent is based on some rather clumsy assumptions and "well we don't know this for a fact, so it was god" kind of reasoning. It's more of the same, just very lengthy and with an ounce of eduction about physics.
I'll read it in full later, but as of this moment I'm not exactly impressed.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
