I never meant to imply there are two different realities.
My original post was pointing out that the arguments on creation vs darwin are based on the idea that only science can describe reality, and that the way we describe reality is reality itself.
Reality exists, and science is one way to try to find reality. I'm not a philosopher, but what I mean is that the argument mixes up the means (science and the scientific method) with the end (reality).
Wilde once quipped that a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Evolution as described by Darwin has been stretched to mean many things outside of a scientific observation; this includes the rejection of God, the idea that morality is a construct, and that it is okay to kill six million untermensch that stand in the way of evolution.
And after reading Peter Singer's book, I hate to tell you that this last reality is still alive and kicking in our universities.
We are now in the realm that you probably know better than I do: that is psychology, not science. As you argued, the object may be different from how it is preceived. So is science, with respect to which people often misconstrue two things: what the implications of a finding are, and statements by a scientist that he makes outside his or her profession. By the latter I mean that, when a scientist says, "I do not believe in G-d," it is unrelated to his professional knowledge. SUch words of a scientist weight no more than when spoken by a plumbe. Yet no one argues with the plumber about G-d, and everyone argues with the scientist.
How evolution is applied is indeed the question of values, but this is no different from gun control. Guns do not kill, people do --- depending on their values. Evolution is much the same: it is not responsible for the genocide, people are. Very same people who were at the healm of various leftist regimes in the past century, and many of those that teach in our universities. It is they, and their values are to blame, not science itself.