Sure it is. The author treats the Bible as history and makes specific creation-based predictions that have been validated by spacecraft data. How is that not scientific?
I am taking just the first snippet of the article and posting below.
“”God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet, maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system. This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists.””
First, astronomy and evolution are two different fields. I think you have a beef with evolution.
The first sentence “God could have” is not scientific. That is called faith. Secondly, the magnetic fields of the planets do not decay steadily. They decay variably. Thirdly, the mathematics in the article would point to over 42,000 years of decay rate for the larger planets. That kind of directly contradicts the Bible. The article takes assumption after assumption
and inserts scientific facts to support the assumptions. Thats not science.
Like I said, I dont find debating faith and good use of time. It usually just goes in endless circles.