RE: [asa] Manhattan Declaration

How was it decided whom to invite to sign the declaration? This might
explain the distribution of signees.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Jon Tandy wrote:

>
> 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 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 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-whe
> re-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.
Received on Wed Nov 25 17:34:56 2009