The weather has turned cold and wet so the training has gotten a bit miserable. I am racking up the miles and trying to do as many hills as I can find but I am doing laps instead of long trips as I like to be close to home if it starts to pour. I am hoping for a break in the weather next week so I can test the sealed seams of the tent.
I was listening to a podcast from point of inquiry while I rode yesterday that got me thinking about ideas and how some highly educated people can buy into some very fallacious concepts. The discussion was on intelligent design, a concept that has no chance of being correct in a scientific sense. the proponent was arguing that Darwinism or evolution could not explain the complexity of certain systems so there must be a designer. This is idiotic on its face as the designer had to come from somewhere and is by necessity much more complex than anything they try to explain with it. more god in the gaps of our knowledge and untestable. I don't wish to rehash the debate but to ponder why anyone with a science education would argue for it. the speaker a man named Behe is a college professor at an accredited institution so he has a PhD from somewhere in biology yet he argues that because Darwin's theory and subsequent studies do not have the exact explanation for every possible protein in living organisms there has to be a designer. He puts forth no evidence to support his claim other than the appearance of design is evidence for a designer. this is the type of nonsense one gets from the Panda's Thumb and other texts that try to justify the religious point of view. There is no logic that can make this circular argument so my question is how can an educated man think it is plausible? What is it about the human animal that it will accept utter nonsense rather than abandon religion?