That's nice, but if everything really is matter in motion, then everything really is matter in motion. If everything reduces to matter in motion, then the terms "good" and "evil" must reduce to matter in motion, just like everything else.
That's the problem with reductionism --in this case, materialist reductionism.
Of course, good and evil exist, so materialism must be false.
Rand didn't promote materialism for its own sake. Her heroes insisted on a moral code in order to live among their society, and many of her villains pursued wealth without a moral code (not all, as some pursued non-material gratification).
Her moral code is not identical to the Christian code. She wrote at a time (pre-Vatican II) when the Catholic church was verging on socialism, and saw much of Christendom as contributing to the anti-individualism of the communists. However, she did single out Aquinas as one of the leading lights of the world in opposition to communistic thought. One of her best friends was also a devout Christian in the mold of frontier Christianity.
When my fellow Christians attack material pursuits per se I just ask: "Then why do you need contributions to the Church"?
But Aguinas, whether you call it matter in motion or -- as I do -- observe that free will is not reducible to mere material cause, you don't gain anything by positing some supernatural being or force. That simply pushes the problem one step back. How can god be free, etc? You might as well save those attributes for humans since we can observe them in ourselves in any case.
Slave: But Master, you can't hold me responsible! According to your own philosophy, I was fated to steal from you!
Zeno: Yes. And I to beat you.