THE ISSUE OF WHY AND HOW

This may not be directly obvious, but "Why" and "How" is actually just another way of saying "Faith" vs. "Science". Religious Belief vs. Theoretical Evaluation could be another way of putting it. Point that must be agreed on, however, is that in order to understand the nature of our existance, we must have both of these questions answered: "Why do we exist?" and "How were we created?".
The first question, "Why do we exist?", is one that is tackled and frequently conquered through faith and religious belief. The word Why denotes that we are trying to determine the reason that we are here. And if there is a reason that we are here, then there must be an obtainable goal that we must achieve (whether or not that goal is achievable is a pointless subject, as it's answer could easily nullify the search for the nature of existance altogether). And if we could possibly offer a significant contribution to the future of our own existance, then that goal must have an origin of some sort. In religious belief, it is often reasoned that our ultimate goals in life were laid out by a higher power, herein referred to as "God". While faith gives us a good grasp on Why we exist, it often does not even come close to presuming the answer to "How did we get here?" It should be noted that the answer cannot be "God created us." That is a blatant misconception of the questions. It could obviously be followed up with "How and why did God create us?". While religion does not often get down to the gritty details of how we came about, it rather tries to explain why God created us in the first place and the reason that we are here. Religion's failure to deduce the nature of existance is in the fact that it completely dismisses the "How" because it regards the "Why" as the most important question.
The second question, "How were we created?", is tackled by science. The scientific approach to the nature of existance is almost completely dominated by the search for factual evidence that may eventually lead us to the solution of the "How". We piece together one puzzle after another, from astronomy to physics to the Big Bang to the Grand Unification Theory, all of them offering us another step in the field of constructed events that led up to our existance here on Earth. But none of them even remotely address the question of "why". No reason for the Big Bang has ever been assumed by science, only how such an event could occur. "Why" is ultimately disregarded due to it's obvious religious connotation. That is the failure of science.
I suppose it must seem like I'm trying to completely do away with science and religion as any help in deducing the nature of existance. This is far from the case. All I'm saying is something I mentioned in the first place. In order to find the nature of our existance, we must have answers to BOTH these questions. Why do we exist, and How did we get here? While religion and science are too selective to deduce both questions alone, the bare essence of each branch of philosophical debate can play their part in understanding the nature of existance.