In the above article, 'scientist' Brian Thomas makes an attempt to refute the work of an evolutionist professor, while blatantly disregarding each one of the six principles of scientific thinking. Here's how he does it:
Mr. Thomas does not rule out rival hypotheses, he simply refutes those of a professor that he doesn't agree with. He asserts his views of how humans came to be, which shows his very evident confirmation bias.
In one example, Thomas says that humans and apes have 700 million genetic differences, which he views as a cause for the creationist view. What he neglects to mention is how many traits we do have in common. Upon further research in the same Oxford journal that Thomas references (located at http://goo.gl/RrDE4), I learned that 700 million is only 23 percent of genetic traits. That means that we share a whopping 77 percent of our traits with chimpanzees. Thomas was too lazy to do simple math, and did not take into account that correlation isn't necessarily causation.
Falsifiability, Replicability, and Extraordinary Claims are not applicable to Thomas's work. He does no experiment nor provide a theory, he just argues with little basis. He does argue and cite sources, but the sources include the Bible, which is not a scientific source, or are used poorly, as in the case I explained above, or are simply too weak to support his extraordinary claim. There is an astounding amount of hard, scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. QualiaSoup is an excellent Youtube channel that has an excellent video that I wish Thomas had seen before writing his piece. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
As for Occam's Razor, a quick read through the article will show that Thomas does not give a simple solution by any means. His reasoning behind his points is confusing, at best, to the scientific mind. The most important principle of scientific thinking in this article, however, is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. As I said earlier, Thomas is refuting a theory that is backed by many years of scientific research. A rational mind would see that his extraordinary claim is supported by minimal evidence, and is therefore invalid.