The Disco ‘tute, the ironically described think tank for intelligent design, loves to crow about how there are basic controversies in evolutionary science and that makes it all wrong. However, in the real world, we know that the mouthpieces at DI are overly fond of lying, as has been shown so many times that it should set the whole world’s collective pants on fire.
But there are real controversies in evolution, as there are in any science. An article in ars technica by biologist John Timmer talks briefly about some real issues in evolution, enough to give you a taste of what’s real, as opposed to what the jabbering heads at DI froth over.
Don’t let the antiscientists fool you. As we real scientists who fight them like to say, just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we don’t know anything. And we know a heckuva lot more than they do.
Tip o’ the flagellum to BABloggee and cool cartoon artist Matt Andrews.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
What is the training to become an antiscientists?
May 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
davidlpf: Immersive religious befuddlement.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
My favorite radio talk-show host sometimes has bigwigs from the Disco’tute on his show. The last time I heard such a show just made me mad. They’re quite fond of false analogies. Like referring to bacterial flagella as “tiny rotary motors”, and then pointing out that rotary motors do not simply form out of pistons and whatever other miscellaneous parts they are composed of. Argh.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I wonder what the Discovery Institute makes of the platypus genome sequencing story in the news this week…
May 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Don’t creationists have a huge rift of their own — namely, the age of the earth being 6000 years versus 4.5 billion years? By their own argument, wouldn’t this invalidate creationism?
May 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
They (Disco’tuters) seem to get all pissy if you even hint they’re using an “argument from incredulity”. I guess they’re just mad that its so easy to dismiss them after they’ve gone through all the trouble of concocting an elaborate smoke screen.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Peter F:
The Disco Institute won’t make anything out of any current science news for at least another fifty years, at which point they can start to quote-mine it.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Scientist Phil Plait admits: “there is a real controversy in evolution”.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
The Disco ‘tute, the ironically described think tank
It should be referred to as a “think TANK”… big on tank, small on think.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
may the quote mining begin.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I take back what I said before. This blog is really great when it goes off the topic of Astronomy. Nothing’s funnier than when the shaved monkeys think they have it all figured out.
Phil, it doesn’t matter whether the DI ever finds its irreducible complexity or not. They could find God’s fingerprint emblazoned with golden atoms on a bacterial flaggella with a signature below it in Times Roman font saying “(c) God. Eat it Darwin!”, and Dawkins & Co would say it evolved that way. Amazingly specious logic is not confined to drab offices in Seattle.
Scientists and theologians both shovel their problems backwards. The question is whether they shovel to God or into things like unobservable 26-dimensional string theory models or directed panspermia.
Still, if I had to pick sides, I have to admit that I don’t think I’ll ever see militant athiests say anything like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7390941.stm
May 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
@Mark S.
quote : “Don’t creationists have a huge rift of their own — namely, the age of the earth being 6000 years versus 4.5 billion years? By their own argument, wouldn’t this invalidate creationism?”
Depends what sort of creationist you talk to. Most of the ones I have spoken to assert the simple fact that the Earth is obviously billions of years old. You are referring in your post to a ‘Young Earth Creationist’.
These sort use the word ‘day’, in the bible account at the start of ‘Genesis’ as a literal 24 hour day, or an Earth day. Clearly that is silly. I have heard other creationists talking about the Genesis ‘day’ as being a ‘period of time’, each day being millions of years long, which in no way disagrees with current scientific fact regarding the age of the earth.
In fact, I was refferred to read the account at Genesis 2:1-25 which pretty much nails the ‘day’ definition by using this sentence,
“This is a history of the Heavens and the Earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY that God made Earth and Heaven.”
So after using the term ‘day’ for each creative day in Genesis 1, but in the end calling the ENTIRE creation period as a ‘day’ in Genesis 2, it seems to negate the assertion that a ‘day = 24 hours’. It is far more reasonable to read it as a ‘day = a period of time’. In other words, if each day is 24 hours long, how can the entire creative period, which is all seven days of creation, as it seems to state at Genesis 2:1-25, be 24 hours also. In this case the day would be 24 x 7 hours long. Whatever way you argue it, the two different uses of the word ‘day in the creation account indicate different periods of time. So it is therefore open to debate as to the amount of time each day is assumed to be.
Although there may be other facets of their creation beliefs that one
would remain highly skeptical about, the fact that many of them realize a ‘day’ as a period of time, possibly each ‘day’ being millions of years long, makes the argument that ALL people that have a creation belief, think the earth is 6000 years old, a moot point. It’s an old argument and only applies to ‘Young Earth Creationists.’ Anyone that wants to argue against ‘creation’ would do well to avoid the argument that ALL creationists believe the Earth is 6000 years old, completely. In my experience here in Australia,(I am not sure about in the USA) ‘Young Earth Creationists’ seem to be in the minority, the dogmatic minority.
Not all people that fall under the so-called banner of ‘creationist’, believe the same things.
I am not arguing if creation is right or not or anything like that, just pointing out that different creationists have different beliefs. It seems to be a very diverse subject. You could use the analogy (and no its not a comparison) of the many different arguments and theories in science as an example. Scientists hate it when ignorant minded creationists try to bundle them altogether as sharing some hidden agenda, for example, like that Expelled film tried to make you believe, about science and Nazi’s and other obviously ridiculous claims.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
EDIT for last post : by Genesis 2:1-25, I actually meant to refer to Genesis 2:4 .. my mistake.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
SF writer Orson Scott Card has an interesting analysis of the Expelled movie here: http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2008-05-08-178478.112113_Intelligent_Conversation.html
Card acknowledges that Intelligent Design is not only wrong, but dangerous. However, he defends the Expelled movie as an example of how scientists who pose ideas or theories outside the “mainstream” of science are often ridiculed or denied jobs or tenure. He also posits the idea that since Darwinism isn’t perfect, why shouldn’t it be questioned?
While I share Card’s religious tradition, I disagree vehemently with him on this issue. Evolution is a collection of data, observations, and independently verified hypotheses that best explain what we observe when we look at how life, well, evolves. Calling it Darwinism suggests that Charles Darwin invented it. He didn’t; he discovered what was already there.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
So uh, Technodawg. Since evolution says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not there’s a God, and many religious people also accept evolution, and Phil’s bad (but appropriate) comments about the DI have absolutely NOTHING to do with bad-mouthing religious people, either specifically or in general, um, I have to ask: what the heck has this post got to do with “militant atheism”?
I always find it funny when people complain about “militant atheists”. While there may be some, they are certainly in the minority, and surely they have every right to express their opinions as much as anyone else. Lord knows they pale in comparison to the opinions of religious fundies in terms of sheer numbers.
From the link:
>>>”Later, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme why he thought it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone.
He said saying that “supposedly faithless societies” ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin, ripe for “terror and oppression”.
Wow, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor says “Respect atheists” but then thinks that societies like those created by Hitler and Stalin were ruled by reason?!? Way to invoke Godwin’s law. I guess reasoning isn’t his strong point.
>>>”Last year, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor complained of a “new secularist intolerance of religion” and the state’s “increasing acceptance” of anti-religious views.”
While earlier he says that Britain must not become “a God-free zone”. Methinks he reads too much into the idea of secularism. He seems quite happy to say “respect atheists” and then all of a sudden turn his viewpoint around and put religion as being “oppressed” again. (sigh) The old religious martyr complex is alive and well – as usual. What he sees as “anti-religious views”, for the most part I see your average Joe getting sick of overtly religious people crying about not being the most important thing in the universe anymore. If people wanna be religious, fine. Let everyone else believe (or not) in whatever they like.
As a Brit, I’m rather envious of the US Constitution which says that ALL faiths (or lack of same) are equal. Pity it doesn’t seem to work so well in practice. Guess there’s not much hope in my country any time soon either.
Anyway, maybe I’m ranting a little. Point is, dude, is that your post is irrelevant to the thread, which is about the SCIENTIFIC controversies of the theory of evolution.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Teach the controversy! Except not to high school kids, because they need to learn science before they learn the latest research.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Hmm, I wonder, do scientists know what “Group Think” is?
Robert
May 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Possibly not as much as Creationists do, Robert.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
> davidlpfon
Genuflection. Lots of it.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Great article. I posted a piece of it for Jeremiah Films iBuzz.
It takes six votes to be listed as a top voted article
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/iBuzz/Apologetics/1210390355
May 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Technodawgon wrote:
> They could find God’s fingerprint emblazoned with golden atoms
> on a bacterial flaggella with a signature below it in Times Roman
> font saying “(c) God. Eat it Darwin!”, and Dawkins & Co would say
> it evolved that way.
You couldn’t be farther from the truth.
First of all, what you don’t seem to understand is how much any scientist would *love* to disprove evolution (or any other major theory, for that matter). It would be quite an accomplishment.
Science revels in alternate proofs, disproof of existing theory, ability or inability to reproduce an experiment’s results, peer review, etc.
Second, I am quite sure if tomorrow night all the stars in the sky re-aligned themselves and spelled out “I am here,” pretty much every scientist witnessing that would say “hmph. Well there’s some compelling evidence ….” It would be more than worthy of serious investigation.
That’s the key word there, folks: “evidence.”
May 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
>@Mark S.
>quote : “Don’t creationists have a huge rift of their own — namely, the >age of the earth being 6000 years versus 4.5 billion years? By their own >argument, wouldn’t this invalidate creationism?”
>
>Depends what sort of creationist you talk to. Most of the ones I have >spoken to assert the simple fact that the Earth is obviously billions of >years old. You are referring in your post to a ‘Young Earth Creationist’.
Actually, I am talking about both — the YECs who believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and the old earth ones who think it’s 4.5 billion. My point is that this is a rift in the creationist camp that’s even bigger than any rift they’re claiming is occurring among the evilutionists.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Hey Technodawg, you wouldn’t catch militant Christians saying it either so what’s your point?
May 10th, 2008 at 1:53 am
@ Darth Robo
You hit several nails on the head there. Kudos!
May 10th, 2008 at 2:26 am
I had an epiphany today after reading about oil hitting $126.
There HAS to be a designer!
A designer with a dark sense of humor.
A designer who put all the oil under the batbleep craziest motherbleepers on the planet.
Q.E.D.
It’s gotta be a cosmic joke, right?
May 10th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Technodawg, here’s a suggestion for an experiment you might like to try:
Get yourself some scientists and some intelligent designists. Get a fair bunch of each. Ask the scientists what evidence could persuade them of the existence of a god, and ask the IDers what evidence would disuade them from their belief in a god.
I’d bet that the former will have some interesting, thoughtful answers while the latter will yield a whole lot of “Nothing!”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/
May 10th, 2008 at 5:01 am
i enjoyed/was humored by clicking on the link regarding the lying-ness of discovery institute to find…a page full of google hits all leading back to the present blog (including the entry of the moment).
May 10th, 2008 at 5:02 am
@Mark S.
OK I see your point about the division, or rift as you call it in both sides of the argument. And it is true the differences in creationist claims are varied and many, and I guess you could say to a degree they are more so than that of evolutionary theory’s differences.
It’s hard to say, and I certainly don’t compare the two, one is science, the other is religion. But I see your point anyway. I was merely pointing out that there are differences in what certain creationists believe, so that is makes it hard to debunk certain creationist claims if what you are debunking only applies to the portion of the creationists that believe it. The rest will ignore it as a moot point.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Technodawg, I strongly disagree. In “The God Delusion” Dawkins explicitly states that few if any atheists, including himself, would hold the dogmatic statement that they are “absolutely certain that no gods of any kind exist,” and that even the most militant of them would only hold to the statement that “it is extremely unlikely that any gods exist.” If sufficiently compelling evidence for the existence of some kind of god were ever found, a scientifically honest atheist would accept it. The inverse set of statements would not be true of the majority of religious fundamentalists.
“They could find God’s fingerprint emblazoned with golden atoms on a bacterial flaggella with a signature below it in Times Roman font saying “(c) God. Eat it Darwin!”, and Dawkins & Co would say it evolved that way.”
OK, I’ll play with you here. If something like this were ever found, an honest scientist (and nothing I know of about Dawkins suggests that he isn’t one) would probably do the following:
1. He would check to make sure his instruments were working properly and had not been tampered with. (Perhaps some colleague in his lab was playing a practical joke on him by messing with the computer analysis of his electron microscope of did something with the microscope lense)
2. He would consider the possibility that the observed structure arose naturally and that the pattern he is seeing was the result of pareidolia. If the message were as clear as you describe then he would very quickly dismiss this possibility
3. He would consider the possibility that the message is the result of human design. Would it be within the range of possibility for current human technology to have assembled the message, similar to when the people at IBM spelled out their company logo in atoms using an atomic force microscope? The message itself is highly suspicious of human design. It is written in a human language, in a human invented script/font, references a known human historical figure, and uses the copyright symbol, which was arbitrarily invented by humans.
4. He would consider the possibility that the message is the result of non-human design.
5. He may in the end conclude that the message was indeed to result of non-human and perhaps super-human design by some entity calling itself “God” and possessing knowledge of human languages, history, and legal concepts. He would not be able to determine from the available evidence whether or not this entity was supernatural or natural or in any way equivalent to any pre-existing human conception of god.
And none of this would change in any way the current evidence-supported view of how the rest of the bacterium and the flagellum itself for that matter evolved through natural mechanisms.
The fundamental fallacy of the entire ID movement is the plain and simple fact that the validity or non-validity of ID has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolution, which stands or falls on its own merits. An intelligently designed biological structure (and we humans have been creating them with steadily increasing skill for at least 10 000 years) once created, is still subject to the various laws of natural evolution, and intelligent designers themselves can evolve through natural processes.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Lars
>>>”You hit several nails on the head there. Kudos!”
Always nail fundies down good and proper.
I learned that one from the Romans. (giggle)
:-p
May 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Genuflection: The art of deflecting genuine science with mythology.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
@Technodawg:
If I understand you correctly, you’re leaning towards intelligent design as an explanation to how life has evolved, partly because certain atheists are making strong, anti-religion comments about their doubt in a supernatural creator.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connors’ comments are refreshing, no doubt. However, to hold both him and Dawkins up as common examples of who represents what in these “debates” is over-simplifying things a bit.
Let’s not forget that one of the major themes of “Expelled” is that Darwin helped create the Third Reich. Not exactly a shining beacon of either critical thought or diplomacy.
I don’t presume to speak for all of the shaved monkeys out there. However, at the end of the day, evidence must be the final deciding factor. As science, intelligent design is decidedly lacking in that department.
Matt A
May 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
And this is supposed to invalidate evolution how?
If those atoms aren’t heritable, i.e. pertaining to the genome or duplicated cell machinery, it is quite probable that the bacteria evolved, while some gods monkeyed around with the organisms afterwards.
And more importantly, common descent is compatible with several independent occurrences of life in general, and especially for our historical record by way of lateral gene transfer for both the RNA and the DNA world. Evolution is independent of biogenesis.
What would invalidate evolution is if a prediction turns out to be wrong, such as invalid phylogeny (say, precambrian rabbits).
Btw, atoms aren’t golden, as metal spectra pertain to large enough solid or liquid clusters of metal atoms. (As you need energy band structures for metal behavior such as spectra.) Seems your physics is as shaky as your biology.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:23 am
It seems to me that a lot of people, from Ben Stein on down, who promote ID are not doing it for either religious or scientific reasons. It’s a political thing.
I have a good friend who’s politically very conservative. For as long as I’ve known him, he’s also been dead against organized religion of any kind. Though he believes that humans have a spiritual life, he’s never picked up the dogma of any particular sect. Politically, though, he’s as conservative as the right-wing talk show hosts he listens to on the radio.
So imagine my surprise last year when I find out he thinks evolution is a crock. Why? Because he’s a fan of Ann Coulter and he read “Godless.”
I can’t accuse my friend of being ignorant of science or the scientific method. He’s a professional engineer and had a lot more training in science than I. But he’s being suckered into ID because it’s been adopted by people whose politics agree with his own. That’s an insidious process, because it makes iD acceptable to a whole new audience who might otherwise reject it as the nonsense it is.
Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure: I’m a practicing Catholic who thinks that ID is a load of excrement too toxic to use as fertilizer.
Thank you.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Just to expound a bit on what amphiox said, Dawkins called that Temporary Agnosticism in Practice. And his exact words are TAP “is the legitmate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or another but we so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don’t understand the evidence, or haven’t time to read the evidence, etc.).”
…
“… agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability.”
I would conclude from his own words that the following statement would not automatically be true.
“They could find God’s fingerprint emblazoned with golden atoms on a bacterial flaggella with a signature below it in Times Roman font saying “(c) God. Eat it Darwin!”, and Dawkins & Co would say it evolved that way.”
It IS all about the evidence.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“And none of this would change in any way the current evidence-supported view of how the rest of the bacterium and the flagellum itself for that matter evolved through natural mechanisms.”
That seems to beg an important question which the ID camp might well ask the evolution camp which is this: Is there any hypothetical complex structure in the biological world which can NOT, even in principle, be explained by natural selection?
If the answer is NO then ID is ruled out a priori and hence, evolutionists should stop asking IDers to provide evidence because there can be no such evidence that evolutionists would ever accept.
If the answer is YES then IDers need to get about searching for such evidence. If they can show such evidence then now we have a real ball game.
As of now it seems to me that ID answers the question with a big Yes. I get the impression that evolutionists are leaning towards No but I’m not entirely sure about that one.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:48 am
>>>”As of now it seems to me that ID answers the question with a big Yes. I get the impression that evolutionists are leaning towards No but I’m not entirely sure about that one.”
But there is never a 100% answer in science. There is always the possibility of new evidence being discovered later that may require current scientific theories to be reworked, or maybe even thrown out the window. So you could never get a direct YES or NO answer. The current answer to the question “Is there any hypothetical complex structure in the biological world which can NOT, even in principle, be explained by natural selection?” would be: Not so far.
This is why it would be valid for “evolutionists” (whatever they are) to ask the IDer’s to look for such a structure. Problem is, they aren’t actively looking and the current examples the DI have given are false. Plus, evidence against evolution is not evidence for ID. So until then, we will wait, and wait, and wait, and wait…
May 13th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Well, presumably evolution all by itself (in the current version) can’t explain abiogenesis, or equivalently, early replication.
1) It is independent of if there were one or several serial or parallel events of abiogenesis. The occurrence of todays DNA world (and perhaps the earlier RNA world) erased any earlier hereditary mechanism by lateral gene transfer (LGT).
2) It is independent of the nature of abiogenesis by the same token. A RNA replicator can be naturally produced or poofed, yet evolution will proceed from there.
3) The current version of MET doesn’t cover all types of hereditary mechanisms.
Evolution can be minimally defined as:
Presumably in abiogenesis the hereditary elements are distributed over the system as such. This changes, perhaps invalidates, parts of evolution theory such as population genetics. Another problem is that early replicators are expected to be not faithful. Under the so called “darwinian threshold” there isn’t any lineages as we are used to, even in LGT where lateral elements retain individual lineages.
OTOH MET can handle some types of distributive and not faithful systems. The concept of quasispecies are thought to apply to early replicators, and ER viruses such as HIV are so rapidly evolving that this model have been used AFAIU – the HIV genome is not an identifiable point in “fitness space” but a rapidly moving cloud of points.
And MET will of course add on additional mechanisms and systems that abiogenesis research uncover.
But again, as evolution as fact and theory is independent of abiogenesis, why would creationists bother with attacking evolution? [Hint: They don't like the fact that humans evolve.]
May 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“The current answer to the question “Is there any hypothetical complex structure in the biological world which can NOT, even in principle, be explained by natural selection?” would be: Not so far.”
Of course, the point is that when evolutionists say to the IDers, “Give us evidence” this is essentially an exercise in rhetoric. They know full well that there is nothing the IDers can show them that would be accepted as evidence under the current evolutionist thinking. So why don’t they just come out and say that openly instead of making these disingenuous requests for evidence?
Now, if what the evolutionists are really asking for is some new type of evidence which will completely change their minds, then that’s a pretty tall order to fulfill. Short of Yahweh coming done in person and confronting Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers at some international conference, I don’t see this ever happening.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“Well, presumably evolution all by itself (in the current version) can’t explain abiogenesis, or equivalently, early replication.”
Yes, but that by itself is zero evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer. So in the sphere of abiogenesis the relevant question the IDers might ask would be, “What kind of evidence that abiogenesis could NOT have occurred naturally would be acceptable to mainstream science?” Presumably it would have to be some evidence that the known laws of physics or chemistry were violated during the formation of life.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Tom Marking
>>>”Of course, the point is that when evolutionists say to the IDers, “Give us evidence” this is essentially an exercise in rhetoric. They know full well that there is nothing the IDers can show them that would be accepted as evidence under the current evolutionist thinking.”
Nice dismissal. I guess the IDer’s are being suppressed then. Or could it be that the IDer’s have nothing left to show, because their previous examples have been shown to be wrong?
>>>”So why don’t they just come out and say that openly instead of making these disingenuous requests for evidence?”
Why doesn’t the DI actually do some science and come up with some then? (shrug)
>>>”Now, if what the evolutionists are really asking for is some new type of evidence which will completely change their minds, then that’s a pretty tall order to fulfill. Short of Yahweh coming done in person and confronting Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers at some international conference, I don’t see this ever happening.”
No, me neither. I wonder why?
>>>”Presumably it would have to be some evidence that the known laws of physics or chemistry were violated during the formation of life.”
But since no-one knows for sure how abiogenesis came about, there is no way the IDer’s could ever come up with any evidence anyway. So they resort to God of the gaps, and anti-evolution arguments. Sorry, Tom, but the only rhetoric I see is from your end. There is no such thing as “evolutionist” thinking, since evolution is backed up by a host of other scientific fields. If their IS any evidence to present for ID, by all means present it. Otherwise, all the DI has is hot air. So until they offer anything other than repackaged creationist arguments which have been debunked over and over for decades, or they actually come up with a scientific model of ID, we will wait and wait and wait and wait…
May 14th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
@ Tom Marking:
Evidence in all sciences are repeatable observations and testable theories. That is all what biologists are asking creationists for.
And you conflated an open question on hypothetical biological structures with the constrained question on which structures would falsify evolution. Precambrian rabbits, for one, or more generally nested hiearchies that aren’t predicted by common descent mechanisms.
That is a meaningless question as it asks for a universal negative without resorting to theory. A meaningful question can only be based on a theory of ID.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:20 am
That there is a good bit of controversy around evolutionary science is one of the indicators that is, indeed, valid science. When everyone is in lockstep you’re more likely to have ideology.