The article says: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states." No. Overall entropy increases, but in one place it may well decrease. A simple example would be a hot cup of coffee. As it cools its entropy decreases. The second law is not being broken; as the cup cools heat is lost to its surroundings and overall entropy increases.
Further, the Second Law has nothing about complexity - it is only about entropy, which is disorder of energy. This is a common addition that creationists like to slip in.
They make it clear that this guy has a Ph.D., so he should know what he is talking about. He has a degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, both from decent universities, so it is seems a good bet he knows and understands thermodynamics. When he is peddling this nonsense, well, it looks like the guy is just lying.
With regards to the universe, Gish says: "... it would have run down long ago." How did he calculate that? An assertion counts for nothing. This really is the totality of his Second Law argument against the Big Bang.
With regards to life, he goes on to say:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created.Again, we see this confusion about what the Second Law says. Overall entropy goes up, but that does not prevent entropy decreasing locally. Trees grow, cups of coffee cool, snow flakes form. There is no problem with entropy going down in one place, as long as it increases overall.
To head this off, he says "unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism", but this is just something he has made up. Look at the mathematical relationship defining the Second Law:
S(i) < S(f)
... where S(i) is the intial energy, S(f) is the final energy.
Where does it something about mechanisms? Where does it allow for an "unless"? There is no "unless" in the Second Law; it is universal. Look at the cooling cup of coffee and tell me where the "conversion mechanism" is!
And a guy with a degree in chemistry should know that.