You omitted my qualifier about truth and the premise about science and truth to argue against a context I didn't say. I was speaking of truth in the context that we cannot know absolute truth which is why in science truth is relative in it's predictability. It is accepted in science that everything is not absolute in that there is always the possibility that any theory or law can eventually be proven wrong. Thus yes Truth by definition is not relative, but in practicable application we do accept very highly predicable events as truth. Religion, does not use logic, but rather semantics. Thus faith can be a limiting factor in the pursuit of knowledge.
In science, shcrodingers cat logic says that both darwinism and intelligent design can both be possibilities until the proverbial box is open (notwithstanding that science has pretty much disproved a lot of the way religion had accounted for intelligent design). In religion, you never open the box and merely declare only one possibility.
See, I can accept that you might be right while embracing the pursuit of science that seeks to open that box. You on the other hand, and I say this respectfully, have already made your decision and erroneously mocked scientists with snarky remarks comparing their logic about evolution as being like the wind blowing.
It's like you think if one is a scientist they cannot accept that possibility of a Creator because they seek evidence that might contradict their faith. (and I understand that some scientist can be snarky about their dismissal of a Creator - which they are really not being true to scientific theory)
