Umm, I am certain many pilots are average people. If an average person with the proper training could not safely fly a commercial passenger jet, then I wouldn't get on one. I'm not talking landing on an aircraft carrier at night in high wind. If commercial passenger pilots require some superhuman skills and in depth knowledge to be safe, then these planes are not safe enough, yet.
When pilots need to score 95% percentile on the LSAT and have 130+ IQ, then I'll change my mind. Flight training contains some basic practical aerodynamics education, at best. And without basic understanding of newtonian physics it is just superficial information. 99% of the population doesn't understand basic newtonian physics.
If anything, I want my pilot to be abnormally reliable and responsible. Doesn't drink, do drugs, doesn't stay out all night. I don't care if he has an IQ of 90 or doesn't understand physics and aerodynamics as long as he has been trained and demonstrates proficiency in his training and flying. It is way more important to me that he shows up ready and prepared to do his job, and that he takes this responsibility seriously.
A good jockey doesn't need to be a biologist or an expert in husbandry.
Kelly Johnson did not need to know how to fly the SR71 in order to design it - and Brian Shul did not need to know how to design the SR71 in order to fly it - but they could have a discussion about the flight characteristics.
How many commercial pilots have this kind of relationship with the designer of the plane and can make their own tweaks to the plane during the development? Zero. Even if this was the case, it still doesn't change my point. The designer of the plane can't necessarily fly it for squat. The pilot doesn't necessarily have to understand how it flies for squat.