Evolutionary eruptions
Can you tell relatives and co-workers that their beliefs aren’t scientifically valid?
How do I engage in polite discussions with relatives and co-workers who act as though scientific issues are not scientific but political or religious? For example, my brother claims global warming is not real even though there is scientific evidence it is, and friends say the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is false. How do I help them understand they are incorrect without being labeled as anti-religion? While everyone has a right to believe what she or he wants, how do you talk with people who are just out-and-out wrong? J.K. / Milton
Thank you for writing this; it’s one of the best questions I’ve gotten in ages! Here’s the short answer: You declare certain topics off-limits, and discuss sports, work, and who’s going to bring sweet-potato casserole to the family potluck instead.
You do this for two reasons. One is “do as you would be done by” etiquette. Anyone who thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that species were created in their present form by God also, most likely, thinks that your immortal soul is in danger. If you don’t want to be preached at about that, don’t preach at them about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Vociferously trying to convert people is deeply uncool, no matter what you’re trying to convert them to.
The other reason is that you won’t get anywhere. Human beings are not wholly rational creatures, coldly assessing empirical evidence and making decisions accordingly. The field of traditional economics is based on the notion that humans regularly make rational choices, and look how well that worked out. We are a mass of desires, fears, prejudices, self-concepts, and allegiances, and these, far more than evidence or argument, determine what we believe. And I don’t just mean them, J.K., the fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists. I do, indeed, mean us.
Our beliefs tie us in to a certain community. Research on individuals who join terrorist organizations shows that, overwhelmingly, it’s not that people wake up one morning with a sudden conviction that the United States must be destroyed and go in search of like-minded folks who can teach them useful firebombing skills. They form the relationships first, on the same basis as any other -- compatible personalities, mutual help -- and only later start to accept the ideologies. And often, the more their ideology is opposed or attacked, the stronger their allegiance becomes. You see this friendship-first-ideology-second dynamic with less extreme organizations, as well.
A young-earth creationist almost certainly belongs to a church. I was raised in those kinds of churches myself, so I know what I’m talking about. These people don’t just pray for you when you’re sick; they bring you casseroles, and drive you to chemo, and say things like “I was going to take my kids to the pool today and it’s nicer for me if they’ve got friends to play with -- can I take yours, too? Honestly, hon, you’re the one doing me a favor!” Walking away from a community like that isn’t easy . . . and there are good evolutionary reasons why. Having friends to help you through tough times is far more likely to ensure your individual survival than getting the correct answers to highly abstract questions.
So what do you do? Agree mutually to avoid certain topics. If it’s a personal, not work, relationship, you might want to leave the door open for a calm discussion in which the goal is not for either party to convince the other, but to learn more about a different way of thinking. Focus your main efforts on the public sphere: Work for more science funding and better science education and journalism. For further advice and discussion, go to my blog, http://boston.com/missconduct.
Miss Conduct is Robin Abrahams, a Cambridge-based writer with a PhD in psychology.Got a question or comment? Write to missconduct@globe.com. BLOG Read more of Miss Conduct’s wit and wisdom at boston.com/missconduct. CHAT Get advice live this Wednesday, noon to 1 p.m., at boston.com. 
