Scientists postulate the origin of the universe via the Big Bang of the hot spot billions of years ago, but this also didn’t explain the origin of the universe totally. Even if the accuracy of this genius theory is totally reliable, it doesn’t explain the origin of the hot spot! Scientists also postulate the origin of  life by evolution. I personally do not believe in evolution, (however, I believe in the less radical part, such as natural selection, mutation, etc, that leads to the formation of new species). I could still accept the fact that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells, but how could you say that whales, birds evolved from … whatever it may be… I think it's ridiculous. All right, make it sounds this way: even if we DO evolve from the very ancestral form of life which is assumed to be a very primitive cell, but, again, what is the origin of this primitive cell 'leh'?

I am not pointing the fact that science is wrong or whatever, but the word Scientology really disturbs me. Without checking the dictionary and based on MY FIRST IMPRESSION, I thought that this is another new religion, created by a mortal human being with limited and finite intelligence, and use it to define the ultimate fact of the universe. Oh please, Science is humans’ observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. I heard this from a wise person: religion is a very deep knowledge, our intelligence is too finite to define it, it is just like measuring something spiritual with your solid ruler, can you do it? Please don’t insult science; you can’t just mix science and religion, can you? If you do so, theories and even theorems may crash. If you say science does not prove the existence of God; it doesn’t disprove Him either! Bear that in mind. Moreover, MANY science theories and EVEN theorems are proven wrong later; one good example is the violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion in extreme conditions. In science, there is no absolute fact of everything.