RE: [asa] Manhattan Declaration

This is precisely the sort of thing we don't need. Not that I see anything
wrong with the Manhattan Declaration itself, but with Dempski's
pontificating on how TEs are less Christian than ID supporters. This is
classic warfare theology, not over science but over personal faith.

Is there any mention of how widely the Declaration has been distributed to
date? This is the first I've heard of it.

If it was widely distributed, why are there only 149 Christians who have
signed it?

Is there any evidence that a wide sampling of those "adamantly committed to
theistic evolution" have been made aware of the Declaration, and have openly
rejected it because it conflicted with their theological commitments?

Is there any evidence that there even IS a large population of those
"adamantly committed to theistic evolution"? (More often than not, they
seem to distance themselves from the term.)

Does Bill Dempski's personal knowledge of 17% of the signers on the list
make a representative sampling with which to pontificate about the
theological fidelity of TEs in general?

Does it strike anyone as odd that 12% of those Dempski knows about
personally, in his own words "support evolutionary theory"; and yet he finds
it necessary to brush that little detail aside in his attempt to bash TE and
Christians who hold that view?

This is really outrageous and irresponsible of him. I haven't read Dempski
much, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but just throwing in my two cents
worth.

Now, that's not to say that there couldn't be some correlation between those
who lean against signing such a declaration and those who accept
evolutionary explanations. I could see it as certainly possible that people
who are "liberal leaning" theologically might also be more open to evolution
than those who are openly conservative or fundamentalist. So is Bill right
in some sense? And if so, does that reflect anything about the theological
position called "theistic evolution", or does it reflect more on the
ideological propensities of *some* of those who are more open to TE, which
is potentially a thing of a different nature entirely? In the same way,
someone might disparage "biblical criticism" in general because of the
tendency of those such as the Jesus Seminar to hold a lower view of
scripture than their more conservative brethren.

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dave Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:28 PM
To: ASA
Subject: [asa] Manhattan Declaration

This looks like something we should discuss that is not related to the sign
that the Magi saw or purloined emails. I suspect some would strongly object
to some parts of the declaration.

It does not look appropriate for those not from the USofA to sign.

The President says that he wants to reduce the "need" for abortion-a
commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and
widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding,
requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental
notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these
important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do
other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which
the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth.

Dave W

25 November 2009

Manhattan
<http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/manhattan-declaration-whe
re-are-the-theistic-evolutionists/> Declaration - Where are the theistic
evolutionists?

William Dembski

About 150 Christian leaders were the original signatories of the recent
manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty
of conscience - the Manhattan <http://manhattandeclaration.org>
Declaration. At the time of this writing, over a 100,000 have signed it
(including me). I encourage readers of UD to read the document and sign it
if it reflects your views on God and culture.

Of the 150 original signers, I know about 25 personally. Interestingly, the
original signers seem overwhelmingly pro-ID. That raises the question why no
notable theistic evolutionists are signers (e.g., Francis Collins). To be
sure, signers such as Tim Keller and Dinesh D'Souza have indicated an
openness to evolutionary theory. But I'm not finding any among the signers
who are adamantly committed to theistic evolution, seeing it as the only way
to be both scientifically and theologically responsible.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. If so, I'm happy to be disabused. But is
it possible that ID is friendlier to classic Christian teaching on the
sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience than
theistic evolution? It not, I'd like to see the names of theistic
evolutionists who are also signers of the Manhattan Declaration.

--
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
November 20, 2009
The following is the text of the Manhattan Declaration signed by 149
pro-life and Catholic and evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders.
LifeNews.com supports the pro-life aims of the resolution.
http://manhattandeclaration.org
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/manhattan-declaration-wher
e-are-the-theistic-evolutionists/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.