Both. I freely admit mine, though. Recall my original suggestion, to backtrack and plug a different set of a priori assumptions.You never said what assumptions you wanted replaced, what assumptions you wanted to replace them with, and why.
With regard to the literal interpretation of Genesis, I see three possible assumptions that can be made before the research is done.
1. It is true.
2. It may or may not be true.
3. It is not true.
Which assumption do you think was made by the scientists and theories we've considered and on what evidence do you submit that is the case?
I've seen it many times, even here on FR, I've seen it at work all my life; the scientific consensus has clearly been 3, at least since Darwin's time. There are those who honestly believe that science literally must avoid any potential areas of investigation that would imply an other-than-naturalistic origin for life on Earth.