just who is "irrational"?

Weisberg is wrong to assume that someone who truly believes absurd things like virgin births, angelic visitations, partings of seas, and other "transparent frauds" is necessarily dogmatic or irrational in contexts outside of personal religious observance, or that such a person fails to think for himself or see the world as it really is. Most believers who've given it much thought will concede that what they believe doesn't have much rational basis. But they choose to believe anyways because it helps them make sense of the world, gives them a sense of purpose, provides a foundation for family strength, or any other number of personal reasons.

The above is a much longer quote than I typically make at one time but I think it is important and for that reason went ahead and packed that much in there.
Let's start with the "absurd" portion. I have never understood why it is absurd to think a powerful, cognitive, purposed entity choosing to manifest His power through actions outside the norm, particularly as a sign He has the power to manipulate natural law when it suits His purpose is something that is absurd to believe...but believing random chance repeatedly defies the odds to actively and accurately create an improved situation although acting without cognizance or purpose makes perfect sense.
It never ceases to amaze me that the evolutionist just assumes that a process that he cannot explain, doesn't know how it happened, doesn't know what alleged links in the chain should or do exist, and can't even pin down to the nearest billion years (that's "illion" with a B) WHEN it happened...yet you are irrational to think that this means of coming to be is anything but assured fact. Ignore the complete lack of evidence, the contradictory evidence, and the mathematical impossibility of it and he has an excellent case.
It reminds me a bit of alcohol consumption. No reputable medical person I have ever heard of denies that every sip of alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of brain cells. Everyone knows it reduces inhibitions and leads to behavior that everyone finds out of bounds. The "office party melt down" where some drunk behaves irresponsibly is so frequent it is now cliched to speak of, for example. I have never heard of a drunk improving a deeply intellectual function while drunk and, indeed, it is ludicrous to suggest s/he could conceivably do so. Alcohol consumption is never constructive, always destructive to the mental capacity for constructive work. Nobody would claim that alcohol consumption could lead to the development of a process for say...cold fusion.
Yet mutations...destructive and harmful such a large percentage of the time that the chances of a helpful mutation are stastically irrelevant...somehow randomly created all the life forms we have . This is "rational" yet belief that this carefully balanced structure called life is "irrational" to believe could be created, maintained and controlled by a superior power.
Yet it is people who believe in God are expected to "concede that what they believe doesn't have much rational basis" whereas people who believe in the power of blind luck (and have the same quantity of evidence if you are charitable, significantly less if you are realistic, even according to the leading proponents of the belief system of evolution (admittedly the rank and file who have not doen the work or research bleat on in their ignorance...on both sides of the debate), somehow expect they ARE rational.
The truth of the matter is neither side can conclusively disprove the arguments and belief of the other. It is impossible to prove a negative however much one might wish to. Therefore it remains to verify the integrity and established accuracy of each proponent to decide what you wish to believe.
Comparing stuff like the Piltdown Man, Lucy, and the other various "finds" of evolution that time and again have been exposed as deliberate frauds with the archaeological accuracy demonstrated by the Bible, its accuracy where it speaks on medicine (the life is in the blood at a time people tried to heal by bleeding to death? nice), nature (the paths of the sea) and so forth...well, yes, I freely admit I live on faith. But not rational? I beg to differ.