“Slightly lower than the angels” is a whole lot better than slightly higher than the apes. Let’s get the order straight. God, angelic beings, man, animals, and vegetables.
What naturalists call “science” isn’t really science – at least not if science means following the evidence! Naturalists like to think of themselves as brave defenders of clear reasoning against irrational superstition, but actually naturalism itself is the superstition. It isn’t supported by reasoning but by blind hostility to the evidence of God.
The principle "that every effect must have a cause is a self-evident truth, not only for those who have been trained in logic, but for thinking people everywhere." Cause and effect, "which is universally accepted and followed in every field of science, relates every phenomenon as an effect to a cause. No effect is ever quantitatively ‘great’ nor qualitatively ‘superior’ to its cause. An effect can be lower than its cause but never higher." In stark contrast, the competing theory of evolution attempts to make effects such as organized complexity, life, and personality greater than their causes-disorder, nonlife, and impersonal forces. As has been well said, "design requires a designer, and that is precisely what is lacking in non-theistic [materialistic] evolution."
Philosophical naturalism-the world-view undergirding evolutionism-can provide only three explanations for the existence of the universe in which we live. The first is that the universe is merely an illusion. This notion carries little weight in an age of scientific enlightenment. As has been well said, "even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street." The second is that the universe sprang from nothing. As previously pointed out, this proposition flies in the face of the law of cause and effect. And the third is that the universe eternally existed. This hypothesis is devastated by the law of entropy, which predicts that a universe that has eternally existed would have died an "eternity ago" from heat loss. There is, however, one other possibility. It is found in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). In an age of enlightenment and empirical science, nothing could be more certain, clear or correct.
Unless the being of a God be presupposed, no tolerable account can be given of the being of anything.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are accidents- the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.
After listening to a lecture on evolution by a science professor, a student wrote a poem and titled it “The Amazing Professor.” The poem read: Once I was a tadpole when I began to begin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Next I was a monkey on a coconut tree. Now I am a doctor with a PhD (Anonymous). [Evolution is] one of the stupidest theories of Western life.