The reason my analogy between the unobservables and some species works is
that
both sciences are believing that something exists which has not been
directly
observed. I see no difference if this is species or if it is quarks. What
the quarks are are mathematical constructs whose existence unites a
whole lot of otherwise disparate observations. The same thing with the
connecting species.
glenn
_______
Normally, I would sit quietly and listen, but I disagree with the statement
you make above. Quarks and macro-evolution are both better mathematical
models than observable realities, but the implications of evolution hold a
far greater weight. If quarks were suddenly observed today, most of world
might notice, but probably continue on. Evolution tells us(presumably) of
our origins. This has significant weight in the area of philosophy. In a
day and age where the meaning of life has been discussed in volumes of
literature, the evolution or direct creation of man touches on every person
and the perception of this truth will determine the course and direction of
their life.
Again, it is the perception of reality which determines the course of our
thinking and subsequently our actions.
jeff