[b_sharp]

"This is a gross oversimplification. The two entities - evolution and atoms - are so disparate by nature as to be incomparable. One is history. The other is present tense. At the same time, neither is fully apprehendable by human observation.

The point of the analogy is the reliance on direct observation. Changing the point of the analogy so you can dismiss it isn't reallymuch of an argument. If both are indirect and if neither is fully apprehensible, then the difference between history and present tense is meaningless.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If both are indirect and if neither is fully apprehensible, then the difference between history and present tense is meaningless.

You place less confidence in intuition and the present moment than do I. To me there is more physical certitude when dealing with the present than when dealing with the past or the future.