Posted by: salamandercandy | March 5, 2006

Dueling fishes

Jesus fish are everywhere these days. You know what I mean, those little stylized fish images that Christians stick on their cars, or on Yellow Pages ads for their businesses, or on buttons on their backpacks, to let the world know of their faith. Also common are the “Darwin fish” – legged piscine icons that represent… what? A pro-science stance, ostensibly. Or is it an anti-Christian stance? According to the oversimplified fantasy in which we love to indulge, there is no difference. There are two kinds of people: Jesus freaks promoting “intelligent design” and atheist science lovers, and the decal you plaster on your car simply indicates which camp you belong to.

In reality, the theory of evolution says nothing about whether Jesus was the son of God and humanity’s savior, so there’s no reason you can’t be fully an evolutionist and fully a Christian. Some say the Darwin fish promotes this false dichotomy, and thus it is counterproductive if we want to get rid of stupid ideas like creationism. The Darwin fish is clearly designed as a parody of the Jesus fish, and thus it seems to be saying that Christians are morons for not believing in the real world that science has revealed for us. In this way, the Darwin fish is misleading since Christians can and often do embrace science, including evolution.

Yet, my nametag next to my office door features a Darwin fish. I choose to associate myself with this symbol. Why?

Well, for one thing, it’s probably the most recognizable pro-science symbol I know of. In some ways, the fact that it’s based on religious imagery is irrelevant; it simply happens to be the image that, in our culture, best represents support for rational, empirical study of the world and the discoveries obtained from such study. Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster has become an equally famous icon for the same ideas, but it carries the same baggage of religious mockery.

However, there’s another reason why I like the Darwin fish. Even though science and Christianity are compatible, I personally am not a Christian, and I think Christianity might deserve to be mocked a little. Jesus taught many good lessons (as well as a few bad ones), but I definitely don’t believe he was our Messiah. The Jesus fish is not about following the teachings of Jesus, it’s about being saved: the fish comes from the Greek word “ichthys” (“fish”), which was seen as an acronym (in Greek) for Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. Any religion that focuses on salvation is dangerous and harmful; if we look to the afterlife to find meaning, we stop concentrating on this life and this world. We stop working to solve the problems of this planet, and we miss out on enjoying what is probably the only lifetime we get. I do endorse every human’s right to a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and I would never try to stifle Christians’ religious liberty, but I happen to disagree with their fundamental beliefs, and I will try to change their minds. Don’t get me wrong, I think religion is a vital facet of the human experience. I disapprove of salvationism because I want to improve religion, not get rid of it. Thus, my issues with Christianity stem from my own religious beliefs, not my scientific beliefs, and it’s important to maintain that distinction. I would not expect all scientists to feel the same why I do about Christianity, just because they are scientists.

Still, we don’t get anywhere if the Jesus fish folks and the Darwin fish folks just glare angrily at each other. Perhaps there could be a better symbol, one that promotes compatibility between science and religion. The cleaner wrasse is a small fish that eats parasites from the mouths and gills of larger fishes; this set-up is mutually beneficial for both fishes. Maybe there’s a way to represent this relationship in a car decal, with one fish labeled “religion” and one labeled “science.” I don’t know which one would be which, and I don’t know how you would avoid making it look like one was eating the other, but I’m sure an artist could create an appropriate design. Or maybe we should have an image that’s just a fish, without a connotation of either philosopher. Just a fish, a product of evolution, representing our real, tangible, edible, natural world, which we study through science and in which we find religious inspiration.



  1. I like your thoughts, and I agree it is very important to point out that evolution and Christianity are not “opposites”. However, I disagree that Christianity and evolutionary science are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, it takes some serious mental gymnastics to make them compatible, hence the rise of apologetics. I don’t see how anyone can argue that a literal reading of both the Bible and science are compatible. And in fact, anecdotally, the Christians I know that accept evolution are more likely to promote an allegorical reading of the Bible, while literalists are more likely to reject evolution. My opinion comes further into all this because I think it is intellectually dishonest to redefine an ancient piece of literature over and over (the allegorical approach), which can lead to fallacies and logical missteps, and then call it compatibility. YMMV.

  2. I very much enjoyed reading this post. Just thought I would share an anecdote. I had to take a core course as an undergrad called “The Challenge of Modernity”. We didn’t ever learn what “modernity” really was, I don’t think, but the gist of the course was how science, art, economics, and ideas of morality changed from the 1850s forward. I had an interesting conversation with other science students (long after I’d taken the course) about how religion was the only aspect of society that hadn’t really “evolved” in modern times. Though I think it actual has in many ways (e.g., most Christians don’t believe in a literal reading of the Bible in terms of slavery being okay), the actually written references used for religion have not changed (except for all the differences inherent in translating and re-translating words into different languages). So evolution, in a sense, may be the solution needed. Regardless, there are infinite interpretations of religious texts, hence so many denominations of Christianity!, and there always will be because they aren’t as straightforward as scientific publications (which can be interpreted differently, too). So why not promote interpretations that allow compatibility between evolution and religion?

  3. Have you seen the Gefilte Fish on a car? Lynette and Evan saw one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: