Re: Fish (was Re: Marks)

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 22:39:48 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Fish (was Re: Marks)"

    On 9/28/2007 6:01 PM, William J Poser wrote:
    >> And I wonder why you would need to hide it. Because of some US =
    >> "churches" that spread antidarwinism, reject evolution (against
    >> all scientists) and even militate against teaching it in US schools?
    >> Do you fear antievolutionists in US so much that you'd need to
    >> use mystic symbols to defend science?
    > I'm not sure how "hiding" came up. The Darwin fish is used, primarily
    > on bumper stickers, by people of scientific orientation who are
    > opposed to Christian antievolutionism.
    Well, Bill, these are the mysterious ways of how Philippe thinks. I had
    mentioned that, if you wanted to propose the pro-evolution fish, you
    would have to figure out the unification of the various variants of
    that, for example, whether having just the feet, or the word Darwin
    inscribed make for different glyphs or different characters (James
    apparently is for a generic fish symbol that covers all, even
    conflicting, interpretations - that's the Grand-Unification theory of
    character coding ;-)

    BTW, I got that your initial reply was tongue-in-cheek, but I actually
    think it would not be wasted effort to have someone come up with a
    well-reasoned proposal.

    The conventional fish symbol might occur in the context of ancient
    writings - so it should be covered for that reason, but what about the
    modern variants. The one I like the best is the 'dead fish', where
    someone tried to improve the design by inscribing a cross with the short
    bar where the eyes of the fish would be, with the result that it looks
    like a comic book version of a dead fish. Do we excpect that Unicode
    unifies these or not?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 28 2007 - 22:42:09 CDT