Your contrived distinction between 'why' and 'how' is based on the premise that something can have a reason for occurring exterior to its cause for doing so. This is not the case: a 'reason' is at most a cause framed from a subjective perspective as being of use to a particular end, but is more practically just a cause arising from a person's whim. I can tell you why we're here on this big rock flying through space to a certain degree of satisfaction because I can explain many of the antecedent factors leading up to the current situation in which find ourselves, as you said, on this big rock - including the big bang and evolution. That is a valid answer. If, instead, you're asking what the [i]reason[/i] is for this to be the case, then I'd have to interject by asking you if you've stopped beating your wife. But, no, that's not all - the flaws extend well beyond those inherent to any loaded question: Firstly, as I'm sure you've gathered, I have to object to the hyperbolic way you've managed to glorify the concept, as if it's perfectly complementary and essential to the practice of determining causes and modelling reality - it's not. Like I said above, it's not about 'why', it's about 'why does God do that'. But more importantly for practical purposes, I'd like to know how exactly we can be expected to measure the veracity of any claim to know 'why'. Empirical claims can be verified or contradicted by observation, but questions of some spiritual 'reason' absolutely can not, and your insistence that they should be held to a different standard, one that doesn't demand that things actually, you know, try to be correct, only reveals its inability to serve as a means for determining knowledge - or 'answering questions', if you will.