There was an AP news story recently that pointed-up something really interesting about the way people think.

The story was basically that a Scandanavian Pilot in Switzerland was arrested - in the cockpit at the controls of a passenger jet - for having obtained no commercial pilot's licence.  He had logged over 10,000 hours, over THIRTEEN YEARS of flying heavy carriers (that's large commercial passenger jets), all over the world!

To which a commenter offered the following:

This is like someone practicing medicine without a license. He performs many operations, including open heart surgeries, with nothing more that (sic) knowledge read from a "How To Dummy" book. I'm surprised he didn't have an accident or worse yet, crash the plane and take hundreds of lives with him.

It's almost like he doesn't realize that the very thing he is criticizing is the very thing that proves he is completly WRONG. 

Like, dude,.... did it not occur to you when you were saying "he probably could not safely fly an aircraft", that he had been doing exactly that for over a decade?

It's odd how people think (or don't think), sometimes, and it reminds me of a book I bought years ago, called "Cognitive Illusions".  In it, the author, shows how, in the same way that there are "optical illusions" that trick our sense of sight, there are also cognitive illusions which can trick our ability to think.

He offered two very good examples:

1. Which is farther West?  Los Angeles, CA?  Or Reno Nevada?  Just about everyone will say "Obviously, Los Angeles."  Some will add "Dude... It's on the coast of the pacific ocean..."  But Reno is, in fact, farther West than Los Angeles.

And then, number 2:

In spite of satisfying our mind's demands for empirical evidence (ie, that would be "proof"), by taking a ruler and measuring for ourselves, and discovering and proving that the thing is exactly as tall as it is wide.....  It nonetheless continues to "look" taller than it is wide.

Even if we put the thing in a square box:

Now the effect is so powerful it starts to make a square LOOK like a rectangle!  The box does help a little bit.  The ruler settles it.

These are examples of optical illusions.

The cognitive illusion is that, even after having satisfied our minds, empirically, that the illusion is false, with proof that would be accepted in any court of law, it yet remains that the empirical proof does not cause our cognitive mind to overrule the false data being presented by our eyes and cause them to see the thing as wide as it is tall. 

In spite of being intellectually corrected, our faulty senses are not set straight and do not start presenting things in their true nature. 

The fault is not with our eyes. 

The fault is with our perception, reasoning, and cognitive abilities.

Having seen it in an extreme case here, just imagine, now, how else and where else this fatal flaw might be affecting you - perhaps in ways you are not even aware of.

I once spent an entire day in a complete funk.  I was depressed, and had absolutely no idea why, until, driving home from work that afternoon, I had a flash and a remembrance of a dream I'd dreamed the night before.  I do not even remember what, now.  Something like someone dying, or one of my kids being abducted, or something...  But without even remembering what it was consciously, I was subconsciously depressed the whole day, and it affected my conscious life in a way I could not explain and, because I was unaware of it, was unable to stop.

The mind is complex beyond anyone's ability to know or explain.  Psychologists know nothing, or at most are merely scribbling on the surface of the diamond with a lead pencil.

That's at least partly why I find any talk of "knowledge" to be amusing.  We know, literally, almost nothing about almost everything, and yet we think of ourselves as "advanced".  And yet, we still sing songs about food, for crying out loud.

That brings me to another story in the news today:

Some homeschool parents are upset by anti-evolution "bias" in most homeschool text-books.

Some college professor "expert" say kids are "being lied to". 

To which I ask, "OK... Where is the proof of that?" 

I have a lengthy rant about that subject, which I just aimed squarely, and loudly, at all the occupants of my house (which happens to be just the dogs at the moment), that I will not go into.

The question is simply, "Where is the proof?" To which I fully expect to have to add:

"No sir!  I did not ask you where are all the theories that so strongly suggest... I did not ask you where is the 'scientific consensus that agrees that it "fits" well...'.  I did not ask you where are all the patterns that, if triangulated and propagaated into the future would very strongly suggest...  I asked you where is the PROOF."

The point is, there IS NO PROOF.  Not only that, but there is no proof even possible.  Proof requires direct examination, and nobody was there however many (supposed) millions of years ago.

The point I am getting at is this.  THERE IS NO PROOF.

The difference is simply this:

There is no proof that God exists. 

And there is no proof that evolution is true.

But I am willing to be honest, and the evolutionist is not.  I immediately grant and conceed that my position is based purely on faith.  I do not try to convince you otherwise.  I do not demand that you "believe" because I know that you cannot.  No man can make himself believe in God.  But any man can make himself believe in Charles Darwin.

God describes "Faith" (and specifically, Faith, belief, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the ONLY way to God) as being a gift from God Himself.  It's a closed causal loop.  Sorry.  Hate to be the bringer of bad news.  But this is a "by invitation only" party.

On the other hand, no "evolutionist" is as willing to be as honest. 

They insist they have the knowledge.  They insist they have the "proof", when at best, they have an arch that looks taller than it is wide.