didymos
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
OK, more of the fabulous Mr. Copus:
A query on TalkOrigins back in Ought Six:
| Quote | From: Clive Copus
Comment: With reference to CC216.2, I note that your response states that "evolution was not smooth and gradual" and that some species arose "suddenly". I think Darwin would have something to say about that, were he alive today.
Could you explain how a species can evolve "suddenly"? |
Wes himself replied!
Clive later had a complaint:
| Quote | From: Clive Copus
Comment: Thanks for publishing one of my posts last month - but what about the other two? I am particularly concerned that the response to CA662 was not published, as it is important that historical accuracy does not become a victim of the evolution/creation debate.
Thank you. |
And got a little Wilkins:
| Quote | From: John Wilkins
Response: We don't publish every feedback response - it would be too long. But be assured that we read them all. Mark Isaak will have seen it. Thanks for your response. We really do appreciate it. |
That seems to have ended his TO career.
A comment to the editor (London Evening Standard) on his fave mayoral candidate (in 2008 I think):
| Quote |
I'm voting for Alan Craig. He's the only one with the guts to say what needs to be said, even if it isn't politically correct, e.g. opposing the super-casino and supporting the traditional family. The root cause of our broken society is the breakdown of traditional families and he seems to be the only one who recognises this.
Clive Copus, Balham |
Alan Craig on teh Wickedpedia, for those not in the know.
Some abortion petition from I don't know when about I don't what exactly.
An e-letter to the editor sent regarding an article about a British Medical Association meeting on various issues in 2005:
| Quote |
Clive Copus,
Civil Servant
Pimlico - SW1P 4QP
Send response to journal:
Re: Why doctors should not decide ethical issues
If ever there was an example of the danger of allowing doctors to determine ethical issues, this article is it. It is riddled with logical inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies, whilst displaying a callous disregard for the most vulnerable people in our society.
It is difficult to know where to begin:
1) Firstly, I find it impossible to believe the suggestion that there have been no advances in neo-natal care since 1990;
2) How many premature babies are required to survive - and how many must be completely able-bodied - before the law can be looked at? 10, 100, 10,000? Is not every human life precious, or are only the able-bodied worth saving?
3) The developing foetus does not grow into a baby - the 4D images conclusively demonstrate to anyone prepared to believe the evidence of their own eyes that it is a baby.
4) Once you accept that the foetus is a child, it must surely follow that the focus should be on preserving the life of that child. This is not a "difficult decision" - or, at least, it shouldn't be to anyone with a basic grasp of ethics.
5) It's disappointing to see the old chestnut about "decriminalising" being trotted out again. If something is intrinsically wrong - as the ddeliberate destruction of a sentient being clearly is - it can never be right to legalise it on the grounds that it becomes "easier to access".
6) If a time limit is "not desirable", is it being suggested that abortion should now be available at any time in the pregnancy, leading to the horrors of partial birth abortion; and the grotesque situation whereby premature babies are being kept alive in one ward whilst, further down the corridor, older babies are being killed in the womb?
Please stick to trying to save lives and curing people, and leave the ethics to those with a modicum of rationality and moral fibre.
Yours faithfully
Clive Copus
Competing interests: None declared |
Comment to the editor at MailOnline, 2006, also Abortion. The dude is definitely consistent.
And finally, I present his most recent "work" prior to UD...a letter to the fucking editor! Imagine that, if you dare! So, yeah, Catholic Herald (Britain's Leading Catholic Newspaper!) this time:
| Quote | Darwin's elephant
From Mr Clive Copus
SIR - Stratford Caldecott's piece (Comment, October 2) is fine as far as it goes, but, like so many Catholic commentators on the decline of belief in this country, he is either unable or unwilling to take the necessary final step and identify the elephant in the room: namely, the Darwinian world-view that underpins our secular culture.
As Mr Caldecott says, we have lost a sense of who we are and how we fit into the cosmos. There is no mystery about why this has occurred: it follows naturally from the Darwinian view that we are merely the product of blind forces, rather than the deliberate creation of a loving God.
The key is not, as he suggests, to highlight the complementary relationship of the arts and sciences, their common search for beauty, and the attraction of elegant solutions that please the heart: much of Darwinism's superficial attraction lies in the fact that it appears to satisfy all these criteria, while clearly leaving no room for religious belief.
Rather, we should be highlighting the latest research in such diverse fields as information theory, biochemistry and cosmology, which provide compelling evidence for traditional Catholic teaching on mankind's unique status within God's creation.
Until we (and the Church generally) grasp this nettle, it will not matter one jot how many "humane and intelligent alternatives to the increasingly oppressive secularism of our schools" are devised: our children will continue to regard religious belief as fundamentally irrational.
Yours faithfully,
Clive Copus
London SW12 |
And that's pretty much all he wrote (that Google could find). I'm pretty sure it's all he's gonna write at UD, too. Can't wait. Srsly.
ETA: Louis, are you gonna do something about this guy? What gives?
--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
|
