Just so you know it when you see it.
So, the physicists will as physicists do in taking this apart, and the same with mathematicians; but when it shows up in broader discourse, watch the historians, philosophers—yes, including theologians—anthropologists, and art critics. They're the wrecking crew that will be effective, if any can, because, quite frankly, most people won't understand quantum physics well enough to fend off a discursive marketplace in which facts are merely one side of the story, and make-believe must necessarily be granted equivocal credibility. That is to say, quantum creationism diminishes God.
There's a bit, for instance, about how polytheism is just monotheism in disguise:
If the God of the Sun is restricted to his provenance and obliged to his duties, how is he restricted and by whom or what is he obliged?
Now, we know that in more formal systems it all comes back to monotheism, anyway; the authority that binds the gods is the authority that binds the gods. If the monotheistic godhead is bound by higher authority, then it is not the ultimate authority, and therefore not the monotheistic godhead. Whatever else these theistic arguments do to quantum mechanics, the proposition generally considers a false god, such as things go.
To the other, let us pretend a framework for validating "quantum creationism". The real answer, when we cut away all the pascalian wages and wagers, will lead toward the reason I describe myself not as theist, atheist, or agnostic, but
apathetic. The reason I don't care whether or not "God" exists is that we don't really have another word for this concept that represents so much as the monotheistic godhead, and at that valence what we have, in the question of religion and theology, is a "God without consequence". More directly, the word "God" is just a description of the way things are at a valence that not only transcends our knowledge but defies the capability of a finite entity to achieve. Whether it's a Universe, a multiverse, an illusion, or whatever; whether time is real or not, but who cares;
cogito ergo sum, or,
cogito ergo es (also,
c.e. sunt), there is a difference but it is both
a priori and
circulus in probando with the latter depending on the former which, in turn, has no meaning without the latter.
If you're familiar with the vague notion of
isness ... okay, well, if you're not, it really is supposed to be kind of mysterious, because here's the thing: There is only one proper tautalogy we can assert about a monotheistic godhead:
"God is". And what that means is actually something we might colloquially describe as a "technicality", but this isn't a courtroom, and more formally we might simply call it a logical result: Any affirmative statement about what God is necessarily demarcates something God is not, thus violating the basic tenet of Alpha and Omega, more generally described as some manner of infinitude about an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent monotheistic godhead.
Additionally, history suggests quite clearly, and the social sciences are growing more and more confident asserting, that, yes, some of these people are effectively beyond communication. The latest round, for instance, is the growing realization that no, Trump voters aren't going to come around, and like the fervently religious, they will simply play make-believe instead when reality disputes with them.
Inasmuch as we need to know it when we see it, the challenge will be to counter efforts to legitimize the argument. That is, explain the physics all you want; the challenge is that, for instance, in my society Christians advocating quantum creationism would betray God, and whether they are so beholden to their sin as to flee worldly rescue and, ultimately, reject Christ's divine rescue would be something of an inevitable consideration.
Whatever else they're doing in a scientific context, this is a mess in any context pretending religious faith part of any ongoing heritage or experience.