From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 22:39:48 CDT
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
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