CDarwin Posted January 8, 2008 Posted January 8, 2008 Does anyone here have a Darwin fish on their cars? I've got two pins, one that I bought myself and one that I got for Christmas which currently adorns my backpack. I must say, however, that my opinions on it are mixed. I find a lot of people find it really offensive. I didn't expect that. I saw it as a somewhat appropriate symbol: Darwinians, in a southern high school at least, are in respects reminiscent of the early Christians in pagan Rome. It pokes fun at overt pop religiosity and the sort of smug superiority that motivates people to appropriate an ancient symbol of persecution to prove their sanctimony on their bumpers. I've been accused of mocking early Christians, but does the modern Jesus fish not belittle them much more insidiously? That said, I certainly don't want to be confrontational on something like this. That serves no purpose. So what do you feel about the Darwin fish? Here's one take: http://www.uga.edu/columns/991025/campnews.html
Severian Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 Why can't you get your own symbol, rather than trying to confuse and/or offend people by making it look like the Christian symbol? It does seem rather pathetic...
john5746 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 I agree with Severian. I like the symbol, but it is just going to irritate people needlessly and turn them away from evolution, possibly science even more.
iNow Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 I like it. Always made me laugh, and was a poignant yet simple reflection of the different approaches to the world. It's a bit passe now, been out more more than a decade and has made any impact it will... Probably time for something new.
YT2095 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 how VERY Pathetically UNoriginal *sigh* beats sh!t outa me WHY some of these idiots feel they need to be so Militant with this propaganda? are they feeling Threatened ???
CDarwin Posted January 9, 2008 Author Posted January 9, 2008 I've been thinking about getting a little Jesus fish to put on my backpack with it. Sort of a statement. Not that pins and bumperstickers are quite the most effective place to publish scientific or religious opions.
john5746 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 Maybe a new symbol with a Ape-Man on a stick, with a branch for his arms... No wait that might look like an ape on a cross... Oh darn. Maybe a star? Hmmm... that has been taken as well.
YT2095 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 how very Sheeple of you, I kinda credited you with having a mind of your own rather than buying into a copycat k3wl d00d look at ME fad, but if you feel this Badge that you MUST display prominantly will help define you... oh well, Opinion Updated.
Dak Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 hmm... I get why it's offensive to some, but i don't really get why it's so offensive to some? I mean it's kinda taking the piss, but it's not exactly on the same level as satanism's inverted cross..?
YT2095 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 lets put "Alah Akbar" on a stick of Dynamite with a lit fuse as a badge too shall we? or a Map of Germany with a Swastika on it? or the star of David with a Dollar sign in the middle? Hmmmm.... Kewl Ideas eh!!!! oh I just Gotta Have one of those and worry about a Great place to display it! it`s FU(KING PATHETIC!
Royston Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 There is no ideal too virtuous, no belief too sacred, and no theory too elegant, that can't be reduced to the tackiness of a bumper sticker.
ydoaPs Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 lets put "Alah Akbar" on a stick of Dynamite with a lit fuse as a badge too shall we? or a Map of Germany with a Swastika on it? or the star of David with a Dollar sign in the middle? Hmmmm.... Kewl Ideas eh!!!! oh I just Gotta Have one of those and worry about a Great place to display it! it`s FU(KING PATHETIC! Or how about "IN GOD WE TRUST" on money?!
iNow Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 Or... "One nation, under God" in the pledge required in the classroom at school.
Phi for All Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 The Darwin fish requires the Christian fish to provide context. It's not original, which sort of defies the "original thinker" attitude most non-religious people prize. Regardless of intent, it seems to mock. I think another symbol needs to be found that doesn't try to imitate anything else, or at least not something religious. That just sets you up for confrontation. It would be great if the symbol could correct the misconception that we evolved from monkeys. It's unbelievable that so many people still think that. I gave this logo to a local Unitarian church after they described their needs. I never saw them use it and I always rather liked it. It was to symbolize, in modern terms, that faith is individual and that with no proof one way or the other, each belief was equal to the other. I'm not suggesting it for the Darwinians, but I always liked the simplicity of it.
ydoaPs Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 The Darwin fish requires the Christian fish to provide context. It's not original, which sort of defies the "original thinker" attitude most non-religious people prize. Regardless of intent, it seems to mock. So, what about the fact that the icthus itself is NOT original to Christianity, but yet another of the MANY things Christianity "borrowed" from other religions? They can borrow, but the Darwin fish people can't?
YT2095 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 that`s about as Stupid as saying we can`t use the word "God" because it uses English letters!
ydoaPs Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 that`s about as Stupid as saying we can`t use the word "God" because it uses English letters! Or getting upset because someone modifies a symbol for a different use?
YT2095 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 so we defile the USA flag for a different purpose then Oh I dunno, lets incorporate the Navy into it, we Know what reputation Sailor Boys have! lets do it why would it upset anyone? it Shouldn`t! should it? Hmmm... I`d have to think about that! might even be a good Logo to use here hell, it`s not like it should Upset anyone is it!
ecoli Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 I saw a Linux fish on a computer in my lab today.
Phi for All Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 So, what about the fact that the icthus itself is NOT original to Christianity, but yet another of the MANY things Christianity "borrowed" from other religions? They can borrow, but the Darwin fish people can't?That's not the point at all, unless you could show that the Christians who borrowed the symbol did it to play off the former users of the symbol, to set themselves up as an alternative in a semi-mocking way. Intent is the key to my objection of the Darwin fish. I think the intent of people who espouse evolutionary theory should be to enlighten others when asked and positively affect the general knowledge of evolution. They shouldn't attempt to mock religion to support evolution when history shows this to be a poor tactic. Religion can retreat behind omnipotent shields when attacked and whatever logic you might have been able to effect is lost behind ideological barriers. When I sell something, I don't do it by trashing the competition. That makes people get automatically defensive (we root for the oppressed underdog a LOT). I just point out why what I'm selling is better. Isn't there a way to praise the wonders of evolution without shoving a hand in the face of people who really haven't studied it? I swear, half the people I've met who denounce evolution are just lazy; it's easier to listen to their clergymen than to go back to school and study biology.
YT2095 Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 and as I`v stated before Elsewhere here, I ALSO am a strong proponent of Evolution theory! and I`m Also a Christian! so me it`s like WFT is your point? it`s Pathetic! and nothing above a school yard type of thinly veiled insult tactics for the sake of it. NO, dimming someones else`s bulb DOES NOT make yours any brighter!
John Cuthber Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 OK, The use of the "Christian" symbol is taking the piss and that's neither big nor clever. On the other hand, if you knew an adult who believed in the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas, wouldn't you expect them to get the piss taken? Not one of humanity's more glorious traits, but a common one. Also, are these people who complain about a symbol the same ones that I see wearing a model of a corpse nailed to an ancient instrument of torture? Is a fish with a word in it that offensive?
iNow Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 Many (not all, but many) religious followers are quite sensitive regarding criticism of their faith and mockery of their beliefs. The logic which defines all of the inconsistent things they choose to be sensitive about, however, escapes me completely. Really? A fish with a word on it on someone's car is what upsets you? Really?
swansont Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 The Darwin fish requires the Christian fish to provide context. It's not original, which sort of defies the "original thinker" attitude most non-religious people prize. Regardless of intent, it seems to mock. I think it's meant to mock the fundamentalist-literalists; I wouldn't be surprised if there were a larger correlation of that subset of Christians and those who display the fish symbol. But if someone has the right to display their affiliation with, well, anything, am I not permitted to be somehow offended by that, and don't I have the right to comment on it? If you e.g. declare on a bumper sticker that you have an honors student at JoeSchmoe junior high, I can't find the notion silly or offensive, and satirize it? (My kid knocked up/beat up your honor student, sold the test answers to your honor student, my kid was prisoner of the month at the local jail, etc). Can I mock your choice of candidate if I disagree with their policies and actions? How is this any different? The Darwin fish, to me, is an objection to the narrow-minded literal interpretation of the Bible, which is being presented as truth rather strongly by some, and frankly, I find that behavior offensive. If Christians who don't fall into that category are offended by my attitude or potential response (I don't have a Darwin fish on any of my possessions), consider the possibility that they are assuming too much. Some people get offended because they "know what the instigator actually meant." But I reject the notion that I am responsible for how someone else (mis)interprets my speech. Especially in this case, where they can just turn the other cheek — a phrase I read ... somewhere.
Sisyphus Posted January 9, 2008 Posted January 9, 2008 The point is obviously mockery, but it's mockery of a very particular group of people. Not "Christians," but "Christians who pretend to be persecuted for their beliefs (which is offensive to those who actually are) AND who feel they have to make war on science to prove their faith." Is it going to win "converts," whatever that means? Probably not. It's a joke. A joke. A not particularly mean joke, at the expense of people who deserve it. A little healthy, light-hearted satire of the self-righteous. You don't like it? I really, really don't care. It's a bumper sticker. Get over it.
Recommended Posts