The Darwin Fish

[Midnight Pete]

An ex-Episcopalian. I have been one for many decades.

I can always tell.

 

[Copernicus]

Me either. This is the first I've ever heard of it, and I live in the heart of creationist country.

It's a bumper sticker. There are also ones in which the Ichthys is devouring or otherwise messing with the Darwin fish. Surely you are aware of the bumper sticker war. Well, maybe where you live, one side has vanquished the other.

 

[Tarheeler]

It's a bumper sticker. There are also ones in which the Ichthys is devouring or otherwise messing with the Darwin fish. Surely you are aware of the bumper sticker war. Well, maybe where you live, one side has vanquished the other.

Even down here, creationists are fairly rare. They are simply a very vocal minority.

I'm well aware of what the bumper sticker is. And you're the only person I've ever known to claim that the fish alone was a symbol of creationists.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm well aware of what the bumper sticker is. And you're the only person I've ever known to claim that the fish alone was a symbol of creationists.

That isn't what I said. I said that it didn't start out that way, but it has become a symbol of Christian conservatism. It is likely the Darwin fish and the ensuing symbol-war that has turned it into such a symbol. The cross is the more common symbol of Christianity, and that is unlikely to change. Whatever message people wish the Ichthys symbol to generate, its popular perception now is that of a political and doctrinal nature.

Just out of curiosity, if you had to assign a symbol to represent Christian fundamentalism, what symbol would you pick?

 

[Tarheeler]

That isn't what I said. I said that it didn't start out that way, but it has become a symbol of Christian conservatism. It is likely the Darwin fish and the ensuing symbol-war that has turned it into such a symbol. The cross is the more common symbol of Christianity, and that is unlikely to change. Whatever message people wish the Ichthys symbol to generate, its popular perception now is that of a political and doctrinal nature.

Exactly. If you put a creation fish on your car, people are going to take you for a creationist, even if you aren't.

Christian conservatism is not a synonym for creationism.

 

[David M]

However, if you wear a swastika, the majority of people are going to see you as a Nazi.

Except in say, Bali, where they won't becuase there the symbol has its altenate meaning.

 

[Copernicus]

Christian conservatism is not a synonym for creationism.

I did not say that it was. However, Christian fundamentalism, including creationism, is the most salient component of Christian conservatism in modern times.

Except in say, Bali, where they won't becuase there the symbol has its altenate meaning.

Or in most of Asia. The symbol originated in India. The Nazis adopted it because it was very popular with people who had a Romantic attachment to what they called "Indo-Germanic" culture. The Nazis spun up a bunch of malarkey around it that eventually pushed out the original meaning of the symbol in Germanic-speaking countries. If you visit the Carlsberg brewery in Denmark, you will find two big statues of elephants with big swastikas on them at the entrance to the brewery. The beer company dropped its trademark symbol after the Nazis co-opted it.

 

[Tarheeler]

I did not say that it was. However, Christian fundamentalism, including creationism, is the most salient component of Christian conservatism in modern times.

And yet you keep implying that it is the same.

Christian conservatives are not necessarily fundamentalists or creationists.
That would be like saying all atheists are baby killers.
Some are, some aren't.

Either way, I fail to see how the fish bumper sticker is the de-facto insignia of creations throughout the country.

 

[Copernicus]

And yet you keep implying that it is the same.

The expression "most salient component of" does not mean "the same". You keep trying to put words in my mouth? Why?

Christian conservatives are not necessarily fundamentalists or creationists.
That would be like saying all atheists are baby killers.
Some are, some aren't.

I never said nor implied that all Christian conservatives were fundamentalists or creationists. And some fundamentalists and creationists are murders. So what?

Either way, I fail to see how the fish bumper sticker is the de-facto insignia of creations throughout the country.

"Throughout the country"? Why do you feel it necessary to distort what I said? The popular perception now is to associate that bumper sticker with creationism because--and please pay close attention to my point--the Darwin fish has come to politicize it. Now, we can disagree on that perception. It is my opinion, and I stand by it. If you put that symbol on your car, people are going to jump to conclusions about your brand of Christian doctrine, whether that is a fair generalization to make or not.

 

[Tarheeler]

The expression "most salient component of" does not mean "the same". You keep trying to put words in my mouth? Why?

I'm not putting words into your mouth.

First, you stated that the fish was the symbol of creationists; if you put one on your car, everyone would assume you were a creationist.

You then said that it was a symbol of Christian conservationism, which you identify with fundamentalism and, more specifically, creationism.

I never said nor implied that all Christian conservatives were fundamentalists or creationists. And some fundamentalists and creationists are murders. So what?

Glad you agree.

"Throughout the country"? Why do you feel it necessary to distort what I said? The popular perception now is to associate that bumper sticker with creationism because--and please pay close attention to my point--the Darwin fish has come to politicize it. Now, we can disagree on that perception. It is my opinion, and I stand by it. If you put that symbol on your car, people are going to jump to conclusions about your brand of Christian doctrine, whether that is a fair generalization to make or not.

Again, no distortion.

You stated that it the symbol hadn't started out to mean that in Australia or the US, but it has "become part of the political landscape" to stand for it.

If you did not mean in the US and Australia then please specify exactly which areas you were referring to.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not putting words into your mouth.

You are attributing words to me that I did not use and that depict my stated position inaccurately.

First, you stated that the fish was the symbol of creationists; if you put one on your car, everyone would assume you were a creationist.

Did I say "everyone"? I think that the majority of people nowadays will, although not necessarily "everywhere" in the country. I think that Christians are less likely to have that position than non-Christians, but most people do now associate the Christian symbol with the Darwin fish.

You then said that it was a symbol of Christian conservationism, which you identify with fundamentalism and, more specifically, creationism.

False, and now it becomes a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. I have pointed out to you that "most salient component of" does not mean "the same", yet you persist in acting as if it did.

Glad you agree.

I never disagreed. It was your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my position that led you to think there was disagreement.

You stated that it the symbol hadn't started out to mean that in Australia or the US, but it has "become part of the political landscape" to stand for it.

That's accurate.

If you did not mean in the US and Australia then please specify exactly which areas you were referring to.

Why would you think that I did not mean "the US" and "Australia"? I meant exactly those countries.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a bumper sticker. There are also ones in which the Ichthys is devouring or otherwise messing with the Darwin fish. Surely you are aware of the bumper sticker war. Well, maybe where you live, one side has vanquished the other.

Or perhaps one side better taste and doesn't engage in a bumper sticker war.

 

[Tarheeler]

You are attributing words to me that I did not use and that depict my stated position inaccurately.

Did I say "everyone"? I think that the majority of people nowadays will, although not necessarily "everywhere" in the country. I think that Christians are less likely to have that position than non-Christians, but most people do now associate the Christian symbol with the Darwin fish.

False, and now it becomes a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. I have pointed out to you that "most salient component of" does not mean "the same", yet you persist in acting as if it did.

No, you didn't specifically say everyone. You said people. Not some people, not the majority of people, not people who latch onto stereotypes. Just people. And without that qualification, you left if up to the readers to take the context of your posts to decide just how many people you were talking about.

You're the one who called it the "creationist fish" and then linked it to Christian conservatives and fundamentalists. Since you consider creationism to be the most noticeable and important characteristic of Christian conservativism, and since you identify both with the fish symbol, I'm not misrepresenting you.

But that's the nice thing about these forums - you're always able to clarify your position. If you truly don't identify Christian conservatives as fundamentalists, then good for you.

I never disagreed. It was your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my position that led you to think there was disagreement.

Lol, I never said you specifically disagreed. And there was no misunderstanding or misrepresentation. You chose to paint with a broad brush, and I commented on it.

That's accurate.

Why would you think that I did not mean "the US" and "Australia"? I meant exactly those countries.

Hmm, then why did you get upset when I said "throughout the country"?

If you are indeed talking about within the US as an entire country, and not about specific areas, then it was an accurate statement.

 

[Copernicus]

No, you didn't specifically say everyone. You said people. Not some people, not the majority of people, not people who latch onto stereotypes. Just people. And without that qualification, you left if up to the readers to take the context of your posts to decide just how many people you were talking about.

Actually, I did not leave it up to anyone to take anything out of context. What bothered me was that you persisted in misrepresenting me after I clarified my intention to you.

You're the one who called it the "creationist fish" and then linked it to Christian conservatives and fundamentalists. Since you consider creationism to be the most noticeable and important characteristic of Christian conservativism, and since you identify both with the fish symbol, I'm not misrepresenting you.

You were if you kept exaggerating the meaning beyond what I intended even after it was made clear to you.

But that's the nice thing about these forums - you're always able to clarify your position. If you truly don't identify Christian conservatives as fundamentalists, then good for you.

Why thank you for not stooping to condescension. :sarcastic It would be nice if you took me seriously when I did clarify my wording.

Hmm, then why did you get upset when I said "throughout the country"?

Well, because I used "Australia" and the "US" as points of origin for the use of the symbol, not as the universal perception of the symbol by everyone in contemporary America.

If you are indeed talking about within the US as an entire country, and not about specific areas, then it was an accurate statement.

Then let's look at the statement in question from post #17"

"It certainly didn't start out in Australia and the US as a symbol of creationism, but it has become part of the political landscape in more recent times as a symbol associated with Christian conservatism."

That is not the same as saying that it is perceived by "everyone" "everywhere", is it? I have said repeatedly that I think the public generally perceives the symbol as tied to creationism and that that is probably because of the "Darwin fish caricature", as I stated in post 17. I still stand by my statement, but not your rewording of what I said.

 

[Storm]

Exactly. If you put a creation fish on your car, people are going to take you for a creationist, even if you aren't.

Speaking as a non-Christian, I don't. I only presume the person is Christian.

 

[Copernicus]

Speaking as a non-Christian, I don't. I only presume the person is Christian.

That's fine with me. I've not tried to say that everyone has the same perception, but I still think that it is a common perception because of the creationism controversy in the US. Rather than to continue nitpicking my words, however, I would like to ask a question that I asked earlier and that was quite pointedly ignored.

If you had to pick a symbol that was representative of the creationist movement, what symbol would you pick?

The symbol that leaps immediately to mind for me is the Ichthys symbol, and that is because I have seen the fish wars going on all over the place where I live, although they have died down in the last couple of years. You can buy bumper stickers and pendants using those symbols to represent either side of the controversy. Nobody, as far as I know, associates the cross with Christian conservatism, fundamentalism, or creationism.

 

[Storm]

That's fine with me. I've not tried to say that everyone has the same perception, but I still think that it is a common perception because of the creationism controversy in the US. Rather than to continue nitpicking my words, however, I would like to ask a question that I asked earlier and that was quite pointedly ignored.

I'm sorry, I didn't think I was nit-picking. Just offering a different perspective.

If you had to pick a symbol that was representative of the creationist movement, what symbol would you pick?

A dunce cap with a cross. Maybe a halo.

More seriously, I don't know, and I don't really think it my place. Symbols are chosen by those to whom they have meaning.

The symbol that leaps immediately to mind for me is the Ichthys symbol, and that is because I have seen the fish wars going on all over the place where I live, although they have died down in the last couple of years. You can buy bumper stickers and pendants using those symbols to represent either side of the controversy. Nobody, as far as I know, associates the cross with Christian conservatism, fundamentalism, or creationism.

True, and when I see, say, the Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish, I assume Creationist. But the Jesus fish on its own? No. It may not be as popular a symbol of Christianity, but it's an ancient and legitimate one. I'd hate to think it stolen by the fundies.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry, Storm, I didn't mean to imply that you were the one doing the nitpicking.

... I'd hate to think it stolen by the fundies.

I think this feeling is what motivates so many to reject the claim that the ancient symbol is now viewed differently. You are aware of the fish wars, yet you reject the idea that a fringe group could co-opt such a symbol.

What has been going on, I think, is a kind of Gresham's Law effect. This happens quite commonly in language usage, where pejorative word senses tend to affect perceptions. Consider how the word "liberal" has come to mean something very different in modern times. Also, consider the way fundamentalists have come to use the word "Christian" to describe doctrinal views that are outside of the mainstream of the religion. I do think that some people wear the symbol or display it prominently precisely because of the Darwin controversy. Others may wear of display it, because they want to reclaim its earlier significance as a mainstream symbol, just as I often use the stigmatized label "liberal" rather than "progressive". Some may avoid using it because they do not want to associate themselves with the controversy, just as many liberals refuse to be labeled as such. Whatever you may wish it to be, the symbol has come to be politicized.

 

[Tarheeler]

Actually, I did not leave it up to anyone to take anything out of context. What bothered me was that you persisted in misrepresenting me after I clarified my intention to you.

You were if you kept exaggerating the meaning beyond what I intended even after it was made clear to you.

I haven't misrepresented you or exaggerated anything.
I've called you on gross generalizations you've made.
If want to clarify and set it straight, then great.

Why thank you for not stooping to condescension. :sarcastic It would be nice if you took me seriously when I did clarify my wording.

No problem. And I am taking you seriously. I want you to be specific and clarify what you mean. Generalizations lead to all kind of problems.

Well, because I used "Australia" and the "US" as points of origin for the use of the symbol, not as the universal perception of the symbol by everyone in contemporary America.

Then let's look at the statement in question from post #17"

"It certainly didn't start out in Australia and the US as a symbol of creationism, but it has become part of the political landscape in more recent times as a symbol associated with Christian conservatism."

That is not the same as saying that it is perceived by "everyone" "everywhere", is it? I have said repeatedly that I think the public generally perceives the symbol as tied to creationism and that that is probably because of the "Darwin fish caricature", as I stated in post 17. I still stand by my statement, but not your rewording of what I said.

So are you saying that the general public in America ( which I would qualify as "throughout the country") does or does not perceive it this way?

Honestly, this is pretty easy. If you mean that some people see it this way, then say "some people see this way".
If you mean that some Christian conservatives are fundamentalists, then say that.
Leave the broad brush in the paint can.

 

[Storm]

Sorry, Storm, I didn't mean to imply that you were the one doing the nitpicking.

Ah, ok. No worries.

I think this feeling is what motivates so many to reject the claim that the ancient symbol is now viewed differently. You are aware of the fish wars, yet you reject the idea that a fringe group could co-opt such a symbol.

I'm just saying I don't see it as you do. Maybe that's in part because I don't want to, but I doubt it's the whole reason.

What has been going on, I think, is a kind of Gresham's Law effect. This happens quite commonly in language usage, where pejorative word senses tend to affect perceptions. Consider how the word "liberal" has come to mean something very different in modern times. Also, consider the way fundamentalists have come to use the word "Christian" to describe doctrinal views that are outside of the mainstream of the religion. I do think that some people wear the symbol or display it prominently precisely because of the Darwin controversy. Others may wear of display it, because they want to reclaim its earlier significance as a mainstream symbol, just as I often use the stigmatized label "liberal" rather than "progressive". Some may avoid using it because they do not want to associate themselves with the controversy, just as many liberals refuse to be labeled as such. Whatever you may wish it to be, the symbol has come to be politicized.

Oh, I'm sure some do. I just don't assume that everyone who displays such a well-established Christian symbol has such motives.