How about a new Logo?

For some time now there have been discussions about updating the EvC Logo. So far five drafts have been submitted.Take a look at them and tell us which you good folk prefer.

This is the best one. I think it should have some kind of background graphics behind the words. I like the DNA/God thing in this one. I don't like the ones that are just words in some odd font with no images.

Of them I like the last one, but I kinda prefer the one we have to them all. Maybe I'm just sentimental that way

I just realized that the current image is still backwards for me

I rule out two of them, because they use "creationism" rather than "creation". The title should be symmetric, so "ism" has to go.The others are all okay, but I have a slight preference for the last.

Graphics dynamics-wise, the last by a long shot. Although the Science vs God presumption is inappropriate. Many see no conflict.I'd prefer the banner "Evolution versus Creation" (with its typeface) of the current than the "EvC" of the new. Although the looser images of the current allow for it more than the clean lines of the last of the proposed. In any case, I'd work on the EvC typeface if retaining "EvC" as opposed to a banner. Its a bit bulky and concentrated in the centre. Stretching it out a litte and reducing height might help to maintain balance.(all imho)The current is better than them all imho (were we seeing it for the first time as an option). It has a more interesting colour scheme that fits with the colour scheme of the rest of the page. Red/white/blue is a classic graphic combination (the US flag is the most instantly recognisable graphic symbol in the world). The graphics also strike a good balance in the debate divide without supposing a science/God conflictLooking up at that current one, I'd dump the "EvC discussion and controversy" bit to the right and expand the logo across the full width of the page. Its unbalanced as it is.

But evolution is not opposed to "creation" at all, only "creationism" (and only young earth creationism at that). An asymmetry in the title would reflect the very real asymmetry in the positons.I prefer the first one. Second choice: the last one.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Definatly like the last one, by a long shot.I would have to agree that it should say "Creationism" rather than "Creation", but that is really a non-issue. Either or, the meaning is correctly defined by Michelangelo's painting.The current one, beyond being backwards, is just over all to busy. There is that mesh of red/blue mucking up the middle and the left/right picture do not really symbolize a either side of the fight quite right.Edited by NeuroCycle, : Spelling and a little added commentary.

I'm going to sound boring, but its the last one for me too, by some way.I prefer it to the current one too, which is okay but I've never been crazy for. There's simply too much mammal tongue on show. And its backwards. But even if it wasn't, I'd still prefer that new last one.I don't think there is necessarily a problem with God v DNA as iano suggested. After all both of those images can mean a lot of different things. DNA might be an emblem of how cool God is to creationists.And it looks sexy.

I like the last one best, but don't really like any of them, including the existing one. I also object to DNA being used to stand for evolution, while creationism is depicted in terms of religious art. Kind of begs the question.On the other hand, it does accurately represent the prejudices that run the show here...I also think if you're going to say creationISM you should say evolutionISM, treating both as cognitive constructs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Glad you brought that up.Some of each were included because there are many people, such as myself, who believe in Creation yet accept that Evolution happened.There is no conflict between Creation and Evolution, only between some Biblical Creationism supporters and all the rest of the world who accept evolution.Using the term Creationism instead of Creation helps make it clear that it is not a Science vs Religion issue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem here is that creationists (at least those of the YEC variety) will want to use the term "evolutionism" rather than "evolution". I think we should try for an even handed logo, which means that both sides should see it as even handed.

Well, thought I'd have a go. Lol.

God made simians. It doesn't work to have anything that exists as a representative for one side and not the other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What is the objection to "evolutionism?"Evolution is the explanation for how life came about, as Creation is the explanation on the other side of the debate. CreationISM is the THEORIES that explain how it works out scientificially, so EvolutionISM ought to work for the evo theories on the other side.I know that abiogenesis is considered a separate issue and some evolutionists believe in an original creation that started evolution in motion, but we can't have perfect symmetry here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.