This morning, on the way to school, I saw a vehicle with two things on the rear: first, a fish symbol with "Darwin" inside (see the image in this post); second, a sticker reading "I'm a Bright." (The term "bright" was coined by philosopher/atheist Daniel Dennett.) Let's think about this. There is no logical incompatibility between Darwinism and religion (or, more particularly, between Darwinism and Christianity). Richard Swinburne, a philosopher who specializes in philosophy of physics (space, time) and confirmation theory, is as devout a Christian as there is, and he believes in Darwinian natural selection. He is far from alone in this regard. If the "bright" driving the car thinks the two are incompatible, then he or she is not bright but dim, as in dim-witted.
Addendum: Please don't say that not all versions of Christianity are compatible with Darwinism. The fish symbolizes Christianity, not fundamentalist Christianity, so the driver is still implying that Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity. It is not. Only a dimwit could think that it is.
Addendum 2: Since the fish symbolizes Christianity, the fish symbol with the name "Darwin" in it might be taken to assert "I'm a Christian and a Darwinian," or "I'm one of those Christians (like Swinburne) who believes in Darwinian natural selection." At a minimum, the "bright" is sending a mixed signal to other drivers. As we cruised along at 40 miles per hour, I was wondering, "Is this a Christian Darwinist or a dimwit who thinks the two are incompatible?"
Addendum 3: Lest you think that I'm being inconsistent in my usage, my Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide (1999) spells "dimwit" without a hyphen and "dim-witted" with a hyphen. Isn't that bizarre? It should be either "dimwit" and "dimwitted" (with no hyphen in either) or "dim-wit" and "dim-witted" (with a hyphen in both). Are you with me on this? Should we complain to the editor?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 