"Can we reasonably say the origin of man and life can only be explained by material causes?" he asked. "Can matter create intelligence? That is a question we can't answer scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it."It's more like there's no reason matter cannot create intelligence, there's no evidence of some kind of separate supernatural organ called a "soul" that somehow produces a mind apart from the brain, there's a ton of evidence that thoughts are always accompanied by electrochemical changes in the brain, and there's a lot of clinical evidence that damage to the material brain causes many (usually damaging) effects to the nonmaterial mind.
Does that make it a "proven" case in a strictly deductive sense? No. But it's quite compelling, and it does put the onus on the believers in the existence of a "soul" thingy or some other non-material cause to put some positive evidence on the table.
"Common sense tells us that matter cannot organize itself,"
If it's wrong to point to a gap and say, "God did it," it's also wrong to point to a materially-explainable phenomenon and say, "Since we see that the molecules did such and such, obviously God didn't do it."
Feel free to measure an effect & declare it is a cause.
there's a lot of clinical evidence that damage to the material brain causes many (usually damaging) effects to the nonmaterial mind.
A broken vessel isn't usually as successful for the purpose it was meant as an unbroken one.
You'are arguing with Descartes' dualism, not the Church's (Scholastic/Aristotelian) hylomorphism. The "soul" is the form (in the Aristotelian sense) of the body. [Aristotle on Substance, Matter and Form]
there's a ton of evidence that thoughts are always accompanied by electrochemical changes in the brain, and there's a lot of clinical evidence that damage to the material brain causes many (usually damaging) effects to the nonmaterial mind.
No one's arguing with that. The Church objects to reduction of the mind to matter alone, which is utterly incoherent.