So one of the questions that I get asked all the time
is when you're out in public, when you're in the real world,
when you're having dinner with friends, and you're meeting your neighbors or relatives,
what do you do if evolution comes up as a topic of conversation?
Or if somebody says, "I don't believe in evolution," or
"I don't think they should teach it in the schools," or
"It's just a theory."
Well, when you're right up front, this is a really good way to alienate people
and get them upset with you.
But, I think there are much better ways to handle disagreement.
And, one of the first things that I try to do when someone brings that point of view up
is politely indicate that I disagree with them,
so they understand what's going to follow.
But then I try to do something that I think all of you,
at this stage in your careers, can do very effectively.
And that is, let them know how science works.
There's a stereotype out in the real world.
There's a stereotype that science is kind of like a closed community...
a real tight-knit fraternity or sorority,
where getting ahead depends on exactly what your superiors want,
and always kowtowing up to the big people -
the National Academy people, department chairs, stuff like that.
The reality, as I'm sure all of you know, is that science works in an entirely different way.
The worst thing anybody could hope for, embarking on a research project,
are results that simply confirm existing ideas. That's boring.
What we all lay awake at night, dreaming about, is the revolutionary discovery --
the one that's going to upset the apple cart...
the one that's going to destroy the common theory...
because that's how you can make your reputation.
Nobody ever got famous by confirming other's ideas.
They got famous by coming up with revolutionary results
and hatching new ideas of their own.
Emphasize that that's how science works.
The same dynamic -- trust me -- works in the field of evolutionary biology,
at the genetics and the molecular level.
The way which people get ahead is by testing, by looking, by probing the theory
-- any theory -- for weaknesses, and that counts in evolution as well.
And what I first try to do is let people know that science is contentious.
That the very dynamic of science -- the competitive nature of science --
guarantees that if evolution was a uniquely weak or shaky theory
with no evidence behind it,
people would be standing in line -- scientists standing in line -- to knock it off its pedestal.
They're not.
I can't think of a single theory in the life sciences that has been tested and probed
more thoroughly than evolution. It's a 152 years
after the publication of The Origin of Species,
and it's still standing. That's a darn good theory.
Second point that I try to make is what a theory in science means.
To an average person, theory is just a guess or a hunch.
Like, I have a theory as to why the San Francisco Giants won the pennant last year.
Or, I have a theory as to why this particular politician's ideas are good or bad or indifferent.
That's not what we mean by theory in science.
Many people think that fact is something you're certain about
and theory is something shaky.
The reality is that theory is a higher level of understanding than fact,
and here's the reason why.
Facts are simply repeatable, isolated observations.
I drop this ball, it falls down. The sun comes up in the morning.
The wavelength of visible light is the following.
These are all facts.
What theories do is to take collections of isolated facts
and put them together into a single, explanatory framework.
For example, the atomic theory of matter is the theory that literally takes
hundreds of thousands of facts -- observations -- about the nature of matter
and ties them all together into an explanatory theory.
None of us in education ever expects a course in atomic theory ten years from now
to be called a course in atomic facts.
As if atoms were something we weren't sure about.
Theories in science never become facts. Theories in science explain facts.
And the reality is, that although people raise a lot of arguments against evolution,
there isn't a single experimental fact or observation that has appeared in the last 150 years
that contradicts the broad outlines of the theory of evolution.
Then the last thing that I try to do is really very simple.
And that is to say that science is an enterprise
in which we try to find out how the natural world works.
It's not an enterprise that takes on religion in a hostile way.
And, in fact, many of the greatest scientists in all history have,
in fact, been deeply religious.
And we can start with Galileo and Newton, but in more recent times,
Gregor Mendel, the founder of the modern science of genetics.
He was a priest. As it turns out, Theodosius Dobzhansky... I know it's a big name,
but he's probably the greatest evolutionary geneticist of the 20th century.
He was a devout person as well.
Frances Collins, a terrific cell and molecular biologist
who heads the National Institutes of Health
is an evangelical Christian.
All of the people that I just mentioned -- the recent people --
are, in fact, strong supporters and contributors to the science of evolution.
Now, people can look at evolution and draw a variety of conclusions
as to how it fits the religious faith.
But, evolutionary science itself, like all of science, really,
is neutral on issues of religion.
There are ways to understand evolution within a religious context,
and I've actually written about those in a couple of books and many articles.
And other scientists have too.
And, finally, and here's the most important thing.
When someone expresses disagreement on a point this fundamental,
I think what you have to do is engage them,
rather than argue with them.
And by engage, I mean, engage them as you would a colleague.
If you and your colleague are working on the same problem,
and you have slightly different ideas about it,
do you call each other names? Maybe, in some cases, in some fields you do.
But, what you do ideally is you lay out your data.
You show each other your gels, your sequences, your atomic level structures.
And from this airing of data, the other person begins to see
that you're a person of good will.
That you're just interested in solving the same problem that they are.
I have found that technique -- in effect, trying to take people in
to the scientific community...
saying, "Let me show you why we think this is so," to be enormously effective.
Now, I'll guarantee you, you're not going to be familiar with every argument
that comes out against the theory of evolution.
Some of your colleagues will. You might want to run those arguments down.
You might want to go to websites to try to find answers to these arguments.
There's a really good website called www.talkorigins.org
in which all the anti-evolution arguments that I have ever heard of
are answered in a very definitive way.
So there are resources out there for you.
But, I think the most important thing that any of us can do as a scientist
or as an apprentice scientist is to let people know why we went into science.
It wasn't because we have a secular, humanist axe to grind.
It's not because we want to destroy God.
It's because we really, really want to understand how the world works.
And when people see that sincere motivation...
when they see the twinkle in your eye, you're going to win them over.
They might be a little baffled by some of the science, but once they see,
as I say, that gleam in your eye -- the glint, the excitement of scientific discovery --
they're going to drop their suspicions of science, and they're going to appreciate you
as just another person working in this great enterprise.
Lots of luck with that.