Scientific American explains how our short life span and underdeveloped brains keep us from understanding how things really function.

The reason folk science so often gets it wrong is that we evolved in an environment radically different from the one in which we now live. Our senses are geared for perceiving objects of middling size--between, say, ants and mountains--not bacteria, molecules and atoms on one end of the scale and stars and galaxies on the other end. We live a scant three score and 10 years, far too short a time to witness evolution, continental drift or long-term environmental changes.

Causal inference in folk science is equally untrustworthy. We correctly surmise designed objects, such as stone tools, to be the product of an intelligent designer and thus naturally assume that all functional objects, such as eyes, must have also been intelligently designed. Lacking a cogent theory of how neural activity gives rise to consciousness, we imagine mental spirits floating within our heads. We lived in small bands of roaming hunter-gatherers that accumulated little wealth and had no experience of free markets and economic growth.

In a nutshell, you are stupid!

Sorry, that was mean. What I meant to say was that our inherent need to have things explained using observable data makes it very difficult for the normal "man on the street" to truly comprehend the origins of our planet and of ourselves. We cannot see molecules or comprehend eternity therefore we have trouble absorbing the data.

Still confused?

Well like I said before, in a nutshell, you are stupid!