Outside of that... when you can find the missing mitochondria eve then we will chat about EVOLUTION, but until then I'm not giving it a thought.
I'm sorry, but this is simply irrational. You're horribly abusing the concept. The concept is that all modern humans share a common female ancestor; as we discovered this (well, geneticists; paleontologists generally don't care) we call her Mitochondrial Eve. However, that's not the same thing as saying that she was the first human, or the only human female--in all probability, she was a random human female that was born well after the species arose, and was part of a tribe of humans, male and female. Population genetics being what it is, her mitochondrial DNA could have then dispursed among all the humans over time.
This does NOT mean that we need to find Mitochondrial Eve to prove evolution. In fact, the only way our study would exist to prove her existence is if evolution were true--and by that I mean the methods themselves would fail, they would produce contradictory results and would be uninterpretable if evolution were wrong. They wouldn't give us a wrong answer, we'd have NO answer!
This also doesn't mean that we'd even recognize this human if we found her. In all probability there was absolutely nothing special about this woman. In her time, she'd have been a random person, indistinguishable as the last shared ancestor of the human species. We may already have found her and NOT EVEN KNOW IT. There'd be NO morphological distinction, particularly not skeletal morphology!
As for every single scientist admitting they don't know who Mitochondrial Eve is, that's because WE DON'T CARE. Evolution was proven well before modern genetics arose (seriously, Francis Crick is still running his mouth, and evolution was accepted by the scientific community as at least of equal validity to any other theory running around at the time prior to Darwin's death). We don't NEED Mitochondrial eve. We have so much other evidence that it takes a very large amount of denial to hold Eve up as The One True Line of Evidence.
Intelligent design is a form of creationism, and is less hardcore than the belief that God created the world in exactly 7 days.
Intelligent Design is the belief that something, somehow, created life. That's it. Some versions say it was a short time ago (a few thousand years), some a long time ago; some say it was gods, some aliens. What unites them all is a complete lack of any evidence for their Creator other than biology, and a complete unwillingness to discuss the methods their Creator used.
I believe in evolution. Pretty sure that makes it a belief.
This is an old symantics debate, and more or less without value in these discussions. The point is that evolution has been demonstrated so well that there's no reasonable justification for disagreeing with the theory--upon serious, thorough review of the evidence, the only rational conclusion is that organisms have evolved. Upon cursory review of any individual LINE of evidence (geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, etc) the only rational conclusion is that evolution occurred. Whether you call this a belief or not is irrelevant--the important part is that it's verifiable.
