Science fiction as evidence against Materialism

I've been reading 'The history of science fiction' by Adam Roberts, and thought I'd offer a brief comment on how the popularity of Sf can be seen as evidence against Materialism

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Artists of the sublime, or of ‘sense of wonder’, dilate on the insignificance of the ‘little dark star’ on which we live when compared to the immensity of the universe; Douglas Adams’ twentieth-century conception of the ‘total perspective vortex’, in which a machine compels individual minds to understand exactly how small they are in comparison to everything, thereby destroying them, is a comic version of this same understanding: comic because the reality underpinning the notion is indeed so unsettling, so appalling, that we prefer not to contemplate it.' [1.]

- What Evolutionists never tell us is why man-the-evolved-animal should care about the vastness of space, or why it should have any effect on him. They just ignore this problem entirely. It seems clear to me that if man were the creature they claim he is, that he wouldn't (couldn't) give a hoot; that he would be incapable of caring. I find it frustrating that evolutionists fail to address these issues. On the one hand they insist man is just an evolved animal, but then having established this they immediately forget it. Apparently nothing will cause them to doubt this belief.
So, we need to ask, where does this fascination with the vastness of space come from in Darwinian terms? I see no way to account for it.

- Why do so many writers in this field go on and on about physical size, and how man is so small when measure against planetary bodies? This makes no sense to me; and I don't see how it can make any sense within the Evolutionary model. Why should the size of space be unsettling? why should it be appalling? If man is just an animal this makes no sense. Roberts is arguing like a theist here; forgetting that he's just a Darwinian ape.

- I see the awe men feel in regard to the vastness of space as evidence the materialist and evolutionary model of origins is false. I can't see that this makes any sense if man is just one more survival grubbing animal. I think that it's only because man is not who the materialists say he is, that this response to the heavens makes sense. i.e. that it's only because man is made in the image of God that we can make sense of his awe; make sense of the fact the cosmos unsettles and appalls him.

Notes;
1. The history of science fiction - Adam Roberts/40
- I recommend the book; provisionally, as I'm not yet half way. (He claims Sf came into existence about the time of the Protestant Reformation, and was intimately connected with it. You'll have to read that section yourself as it's too involved to get into here.)
2. We might ask whether it's feeling small in comparison to the universe that unsettles man, or whether it's feeling small in comparison to God?