I found this article via a link from intelligent design proponent William Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent. Frank Tipler is a very serious cosmologist, and I find it frankly intimidating, as a scientific layman, to take issue with his arguments. But I find them more than a little odd, and much of the oddness has very little to do with physics. But then, I find it rather odd that Dembski, even if he's far from your typical young-earth creationist, would link so enthusiastically to this article. Tipler is a rather unusual sort of Christian, as you can see from the article: he is not only a strict determinist, he identifies determinism with God's omniscience, which I'm pretty sure is a regarded as heterodox even by Calvinists. "Things must happen this way" and "a Creator dwelling outside of time knows things will happen this way" are not the same statement and neither implies the other.
Tipler also asserts, in passing, that there is no real difference between organisms and machines: everything is a machine. To be sure, Dembski probably has no real quarrel with this particular point; comparisons between living things and machines are a recurrent motif in their works. Still, there's something mildly odd in seeing Christian apologetics come round to the position, seen as quite radical and materialistic in the 18th century, of La Mettrie's L'Homme Machine.
Tipler is commenting on the same book by Angelo Codevilla dealt with in an earlier post. He sees the "ruling class" as dominated, intellectually, by "Darwinism" and the belief that the universe must, at bottom, be non-deterministic, stochastic and unpredictable, in which species and institutions are contingent (cf. Gould's comment in Wonderful Life that if we "rewound the tape" of life's history we'd surely get nothing like Homo sapiens), and a "country class" dominated by the Newtonian view that the universe is rigidly deterministic and in which human beings were a foreordained outcome. He states that Christians and Jews have never objected to common descent or having monkey ancestors (apparently I've been badly mistaken about the religious affiliations of a lot of prominent young-earth creationists -- and more importantly, so have they been), but only to the idea that nothing in nature made our arrival inevitable, the idea that we might never have evolved and that something else, perhaps intelligent, perhaps not, might have evolved in our stead. To quite a few creationists, that we are radically separate, in kind and lineage, from other animals is at least as important as (if not indeed part and parcel of) the idea that we were foreordained.
Now, when Tipler says that we've known for decades that quantum indeterminacy is the result of interference from other universes, I cannot say whether he's right that this is the only sensible interpretation of the evidence or the equations; I can only note that, as a matter of empirical fact, quite a few physicists and cosmologists seem not to have got the message; they hold to rival interpretations of quantum theory that dismiss parallel universes and hold that the indeterminacy is quite real. But when he says that Christians must accept determinism, I think this is a sense of "must" I have not previously encountered; I've run across Christian writers who in fact embrace indeterminacy as the key to free will and deny emphatically that the future is foreordained (even if it is foreknown by God).
Side note: I think Tipler is wrong when he says that "Darwinism" is incompatible with determinism. He quotes a passage from Darwin in support of his view: "[If] we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained … natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature." But having argued other people's actual opinions against Tipler's views of what they "must" think, I shall now turn around and point out that no matter what Darwin may have thought at a particular point in time (for at other points, he saw natural selection as compatible with determinism), if determinism is in fact true, then natural selection can be viewed as simply one level of explanation: how determinism looks when viewed at a particular level of detail.
Side note two: if the sort of multiple universes (the Everett "many worlds" interpretation) Tipler speaks of are real, then determinism is real: every possible outcome must take place. We are foreordained by nature, but so are myriad different species of intelligent dinosaurs, and so are uncountable myriads of myriads of worlds where life never progressed beyond pond scum. If human nature is foreordained in this sense, every possible sort of human nature (and there's no particular reason to suppose that the range of possible natures is narrowly limited) is foreordained and exists in some parallel universe (and for that matter, we cannot avoid the question of whether human nature in this universe is exactly what Tipler or Dembski expect or hope it to be).
I'm wondering how many ID advocates (never mind mere "I didn't come from a monkey" biblical creationists) would be quite happy with that sort of determinism, a determinism that still leaves humans as nothing special, and "foreordained" only in the sense that countless contrary possibilities were equally foreordained. The Creator invoked by Tipler is rather sharply different from the Creator invoked by Ray Comfort, or even by Benjamin Franklin, and I think it's a bit misleading to talk as though calling them the same thing makes them the same thing.
Not such a side note: Tipler is mainly interested in whether human nature is foreordained or contingent, not in whether the properties of complex systems such as the U.S. economy or society can be predicted in detail. Indeed, it seems to me that the goals of political conservatives and opponents of social engineering would be served by pointing out that however deterministic the world is in theory, in practice we just cannot have enough data to say for sure what the future holds, what the judgment of history will be, or what the effects of our own actions will be: the opponent of state planning wants a world of Darwinian contingency. The article is a fascinating if perverse take on the Obama fans versus the Tea Partiers, but I'm not sure either side would recognize Tipler's interpretation of them.