It seems rather silly to me to interpret humanity’s special status in Christianity astronomically as opposed to metaphysically (i.e., as referring to rationality and free will). This confirms that atheists aren’t always as rational as they think they are.
Unfortunately, North propagates the myth of the incompatibility of science and Christianity. Like many atheists, he tends to conflate science with certain philosophical positions that are allegedly derived from, or presupposed by, science. He also implies that teleology only refers to conscious goals, and he doesn’t clearly distinguish between Aquinas’s and Paley’s arguments for the existence of God. On these issues, Edward Feser’s writings are very instructive.