It’s specifically to mock anyone that doesn’t believe in evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more for mocking religion in general.
True atheists put invisible pink unicorns on their car. But you can’t see them. They’re invisible.
The “insult” is also lost on me, and on the Christians present or mentioned who have had a “Darwin” themselves.
No doubt some people intend it as an insult, or something like that, but it’s clear that others don’t. And some of them see the amphibian as including the Jesus fish. So don’t be too quick to read other people’s intentions with symbols that have multiple referents and contexts.
Pray you will be eaten first: Cthulhu Fish - Arkham Bazaar
Oh man, I remember the first time I saw one of these. I almost drove off the road from laughing so hard.
I absolutely did not mean mine as an insult. I think it’s spurious to state that it’s intended that way. I intended mine as a statement of belief: “I am a Christian and I agree with evolution.” I have never found there to be any conflict between those two ideas.
Damn.
For Christians who believe in evolution, they should have a Jesus fish and a Darwin fish kissing. Like kissing-fish.
I’m not convinced by polls like this, unless we’re talking about very beginning of life on earth. Religious people are likely to assert that God, or The Gods, did something at the very beginning of time to light the fire of life. But I’m convinced that many of these same people also accept the idea of evolution with regard to the idea of modern humans evolving from more primitive species, or the idea that modern genetically definable taxa of animals today have descended from a common ancestor.
Unless the mainstreamers are backpedaling, and have driven the evolutionists out.
What, none with bin Laden inside? (remember, you saw it here first.)
I have seen one, or an ad for one, with Gefilte inside.
I have the “Science” fish that has rocket fins on my car’s bumper. I’m a “raised-catholic now zen agnostic who doesn’t care what peoples own faith is so long as they don’t try to force it on me” kind of person. Make of that what you will.
Because religious belief is idiotic and destructive, while disbelieving isn’t. And because not doing so allows them to pretend that everyone agrees with them, to live their little fantasy where atheists are all Satan worshipers or Communists or don’t even exist while they shove their delusions by force down the throats of everyone they can.
The difference is, they ARE wrong. Evolution has an absolutely massive amount of evidence in its favor; denying it is like denying the existence of fire or gravity at this point. This is not a dispute that has two equally legitimate sides, or even one where one side is much more likely to be true than the other; it is an argument where one side is unequivocally right, and the other unequivocally wrong. If people aren’t allowed to confidently say they are right on something as well proven as evolution then we might as well collectively curl up in a fetal position and adopt solipsism.
And they won’t shut up because they are massively ignorant, insane, or idiots. Not because of anything I do or don’t do. It’s not my fault they are determined to blindly deny reality.
You’re making the OP’s point by asserting the same non sequitur he is questioning. Your logic is analogous to addressing all men as serial killers, and justifying it by saying, “Well, pretty much all serial killers are men.”
The other day I was in a line of traffic at a red light: Darwin fish, Darwin fish, FSM (mine).
Then again I do live in Oxford.
Have you considered seeking therapy for your misplaced anger?
But how do they square it with Adam and Eve?
I have a tee shirt that shows the jerusalem fish on a backyard grill. I like that symbol better. 
Even better is the “EVOLVE” fish, which also has legs.
Other tees, one asks “Got Proof?” another has a stickman dumping religious symbols in a trash receptacle. I like the more direct approach.
I would say “cite” but there is no point.
You do realize your beliefs about religion have about as much reality to it as religion itself, right? Your entire arguement is founded on logical fallacies from the start.
But then, I think you have me on ignore. I’ll drop it.
–Tristan, athiest
(as for the OP, I tend to think of folks with Darwin fish as being if not athiest, at least not athiest-hostile. And I want a science fish now. 