Comment: I meant subjective

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You are right. (see in situ)

I meant subjective

This is because all the information which I can gather through science and religion did not satisfy my desire for understanding the truth. What I do know for myself is to tentatively treat origin of life as intelligent design first, but then understand this through science and philosophy, not necessarily implicate it for lack of objectivity.

The philosophical nature of my disposition is what makes it subjective. Why, what, how, and when. What was the mutative process of developing two eyes? Should there not be residual evidence supporting the "in-between" stages of evolution if it indeed is what is theorized? Where are all the in-between evidence going from single-celled organism to the next level of mutation? If these mutations take place for millions of years, shouldn't they still persist as such so that the succeeding mutation can have time to evolve? There are just far more questions yet to be realized.

I'm not trying to bash science. I really love science for exposing the truth, but I believe it is the establishment scientific community which try too hard to make their evolution theory a must-be scenario.

There are just too many questions which remain mysteries which have yet to be understood to claim affirmation to any scientific or religious creed.

Which came first, the mouth or the rectum?