Did I make any of those statements? No. But, I would be more interested in the words of an Eyewitness, the Creator, than the conjecture of one of His creatures. And, I certainly did not say that I was anti-science. If scientists are what they claim, unbiased and open to discover whatever is true about the universe, why do you assume that anything that is not made of "matter" is unworthy of investigation?
I would ask you to explain, if you so chose, "Information." Information is not matter, it is not energy, and it is certainly not space. It can be transmitted by means of matter, but it is not dependent on the matter to exist. It can be transmitted by energy (morse code), but it is not energy. It can be transmitted through space, but it is not part of space. You can't touch information, you can't see it under a microscope, you can measure it with scales, nor with a ruler. But it truly exists. Is it not worthy of investigation because it can't be detected in the typical scientific manner?
Last question - what is the atomic structure of an idea? I would subnit, there are a lot of things in the universe that are not the subject of naturalistic scientific study, but are equally valid.
P.S. The order found in the universe indicates and orderly beginning. The Christian/Creationist scientist sets out to investigate that order. The naturalist, holding to random chance as the mechanism for all things, can not count on order...what you discover today may have changed tomorrow. How can you count on anything being consistent?