How can the materialistic viewpoint be defended from the following attacks: 1) Local interactions vs. spooky action at a distance: Action at a distance suggests non-material interaction. 2) Descriptive laws vs. prescriptive laws: Prescriptive laws are non-material entities, and this is a no-no for a pure materialist. 3) Anti-realist account of causation vs. realist account of causation: Realist views of causation are based on real causal relations and laws, which are non-material entities. 4) Elimination of metaphysics: Metaphysics is an undesirable quality for any purely materialist account of nature as the 20th century positivists made pretty clear. 5) An infinite aged universe: Matter coming into sudden existence implies that a non-material principle or cause was responsible for this act (versus a previous material explanation). Each of the above theses has been dealt severe blows. (1) is falling through the ropes after the Aspect experiments. (2) can't account for such experimental successes such as Casimir forces and other predictions using virtual particles. (3) cannot account for quantum mechanics which emphasizes a causal realism with such concepts as teleportation, entanglement, etc.. (4) has been a dismal failure as no materialist perspective has been able to eliminate the increasing role that metaphysics plays in science. (5) has continued to favor a finite age to the universe with the realization of singularity theorems showing that the big bang/inflationary cosmologies must have a beginning.