I know very well what an accomodationist is. What I asked for is the relevance to anything you're talking about.
An example of one religious Darwinist who sports it as a logo?
My room mate back in grad school, a lifelong Christian, had one on his car for a while. He eventually upgraded to a Flying Spaghetti Monster, though.
I have also known lifelong Christians who bought used cars with the Jesus Fish on them, and removed them because they didn't want people to think they were creationists or fundamentalists.
The creator was an atheist:
So what? That doesn't mean everyone who buys one is an atheist, or that anyone who sees them understands them to refer to atheism.
The creator chose to use the word "Darwin" on the fish in reference to the history of educational controversies in America, and that's what Americans understand the symbol to refer to.
Is it? It seems more like using science to proselytise atheism.
Only if you equate resistance to fundie attempts to censor evolution as "atheism" (which is a core lie of the fundie campaign), and displays conveying this as "proselytizing."
But to anyone with an understanding of US culture and history, it's clear that these are political statements about fundamentalist political campaigns (largely about educational policy).
Of course you do. You cannot see how he is associating understanding science with requiring atheism.
That's because he isn't. The only way to impose such an interpretation on those words is to equate fundamentalism with all religion (and so, resistance to fundamentalism with atheism). Which -
again - is the classic lie perpetrated by fundamentalists, in their pursuit of social control.
And what you'd been accusing him of, previously, was "conflating atheism with science," which is an altogether different matter than "associating understanding science with requiring atheism." Which itself is an altogether different matter than what he did do, which was note that the incidence of atheism increases as you climb the scientific achievement ladder. He's never said that you
must be an atheist to understand science.
It would greatly behoove you to think your statements through before posting them, and expend an effort to actually figure out what you're trying to say and what words would correctly encapsulate that. Not only will people understand you better, the consistency in your speech would eventually translate into consistency in your thoughts.
The town I grew up in hosts the highest per-capita concentration of PhD scientists on Earth, and also a very high per-capita concentration of churches/synagogues/temples/etc. There was no shortage of religious people of high scientific achievement, there. But anyone who suggested teaching creationism in schools (and there were a few - including a geologist, of all people) was regarded as a quack and a disservice to their faith community. But in other places where the commitment to science is not as high, the fundies are more successful in co-opting their communities, and so do real damage.