Dr. Jay Wile left Apologia

[TXMary2]

Has anyone heard about this? Apparently Dr. Wile has some doctrinal disagreements with the new owners and no longers wants to be associated with Apologia!

 

I love the Apologia science series for upper grades and am wondering what this means for these books in the future. If he is no longer there then that means he will not be the one updating future editions. I feel like I should start collecting the sets now just in case. Yikes.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Wow.

 

I'm doing a search on this info and finding nothing. Where do you hear it?

[tex-mex]

No. Really??? (Is this a joke... ?) :confused:

[holdoll]

I feel like I should start collecting the sets now just in case. Yikes.

 

Ugh! It's true! :001_unsure:

 

Here's from his blog:http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2206

[TXMary2]

No. Really??? (Is this a joke... ?) :confused:

 

nm....he sold the company but stayed on as a consultant etc....but now he has left for good.

 

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2206

Edited August 17, 2010 by TXMary2

[Jean in Newcastle]

So, looking at the comments, he says that the "What we Believe" books were pivotal in his departure. Does anyone know the basics of what those books teach?

[Mom22ns]

I saw it posted on his blog yesterday. I keep expecting there to be discussion here :001_smile:. I have met Dr. Wile at a homeschool conference and I like him. I don't use Apologia science though, so it has no real effect on me.

[TXMary2]

So, looking at the comments, he says that the "What we Believe" books were pivotal in his departure. Does anyone know the basics of what those books teach?

 

I think he said he doesn't like students being told what to believe, that rather they should be taught how to think and choose on their own what to believe. That said, he said it was only one of the reasons.

 

I want to know what is going to happen with his book series with regards to future editions. Apologia is the only science I use anymore for upper level and have plans to use them with younger ds when the time comes. I am a little bit freaked out because I don't want them to change to something the author doesn't like.

[simka2]

I think it also had to do with the general impression that only 1 stream of Christianity is okay (Calvinist) and doesn't allow for a diversity of Christian belifes.

[WishboneDawn]

So, looking at the comments, he says that the "What we Believe" books were pivotal in his departure. Does anyone know the basics of what those books teach?

 

He also mentions something about young earth Calvinists. Not in any disrespectful way but I got the sense he felt that's what Apologia was presenting and something he disagreed with.

 

Never thought much of Apologia being the evolution-accepting person I am but I think Dr. Wile, from what I've read on the blog, is someone I could respect. He's very careful with his words and very open about what being Christian means. :)

[simka2]

He also mentions something about young earth Calvinists. Not in any disrespectful way but I got the sense he felt that's what Apologia was presenting and something he disagreed with.

 

Never thought much of Apologia being the evolution-accepting person I am but I think Dr. Wile, from what I've read on the blog, is someone I could respect. He's very careful with his words and very open about what being Christian means. :)

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Daisy]

If you read all the comments at the blog, you see that he has issues with the books leaning in what he feels is a Calvinist bent (though the books claim to be nondenomational). But he would appear to also have a problem with the them if they leaned in an exclusively Arminian bent. From what I gathered his issue is more the division that is created by excluding orthodox Christianity. He doesn't like the doctrinal lines being drawn in the sand. And yet, if I'm not wrong, hasn't he done something very similar in his science books by drawing a line between young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists? I don't know that much about his curriculum though.

 

That is just my impression. I could well be wrong.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Daisy

[Evergreen State Sue]

He says he will launch a homeschooling product line in three years. Wouldn't you think Apologia would still carry the books that he currently has out?

[mcconnellboys]

But I've always thought that he is young earth? Isn't he?

[Old Dominion Heather]

I get the impression that it is more the Calvinist part that he disagrees with. I can't IMAGINE him not being young earth. YE is pervasive in all their books, I think.

[Daisy]

It can't just be about the Calvinism thing because frankly the book series he is referring to just isn't all that Calvinistic, so I tend to think it is more about the exclusion of orthodoxy which he also mentions. Maybe?

 

His thinking vs being told what to believe statement makes me wonder. I've never looked at the High School Apologia science courses and only know what I've heard here. Do Wile's science texts leave the issue of origins up to the student to think through on their own?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Daisy

[VaKim]

Looks like I would like the new owners' view better than Mr. Wile's. Good to know. Might have to check out what they have.

[OnTheBrink]

From what I understand from his responses to comments, his previously written science texts will still be sold through Apologia, as he indicated his financial future is still tied with Apologia through the books.

 

Personally, I believe that if Apologia is moving in a direction that he's not comfortable with, then leaving was the best option for him. It would be disingenuous for him to stay with a ministry that's contrary to what he believes.

[kalanamak]

Looks like I would like the new owners' view better than Mr. Wile's.

 

I cannot see his name without thinking of Road Runner. :tongue_smilie:

[Daisy]

From what I understand from his responses to comments, his previously written science texts will still be sold through Apologia, as he indicated his financial future is still tied with Apologia through the books.

 

Personally, I believe that if Apologia is moving in a direction that he's not comfortable with, then leaving was the best option for him. It would be disingenuous for him to stay with a ministry that's contrary to what he believes.

 

:iagree:

[Zoo Keeper]

Thanks for the cut and paste, Christina. He raises some interesting points....

[dragons in the flower bed]

I cannot see his name without thinking of Road Runner. :tongue_smilie:

 

This is the extent of my opinion about his whole scenario.

[tex-mex]

Strangely enough, when we used his Astronomy and Physical Science books back in Junior High -- I got the impression from the text Apologia did advocate a young earth POV?? (This was why I didn't continue with them beyond junior high. Especially with Biology.) I like him and respect his work. But I think he may need to be careful with that blog as the new owner could say it is slander? Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

[Laurie4b]

It can't just be about the Calvinism thing because frankly the book series he is referring to just isn't all that Calvinistic, so I tend to think it is more about the exclusion of orthodoxy which he also mentions. Maybe?

 

His thinking vs being told what to believe statement makes me wonder. I've never looked at the High School Apologia science courses and only know what I've heard here. Do Wile's science texts leave the issue of origins up to the student to think through on their own?

 

Calvinism is included within orthodoxy. When "orthodox" is written with Christian and a little o, it refers to Christianity that is consistent with the creeds (Apostles, Nicene). Orthodox Christianity in this sense includes Catholocism, the Orthodox Church (Eastern Orthodox, etc.), Protestants, Pentecostals, etc.

 

What I read him to say was not that the series excludes orthodox Christian thought (which would make it heretical), but that it doesn't allow for differences of doctrine that are present within orthodox Christian tradition. For example, Calvinism is orthodox, but so is Arminianism, yet they do not agree on some doctrine. Protestants and Catholics are both orthodox, yet obviously, there are doctrinal differences. Dr. Wiles is saying he prefers that kids not be taught the "one right view" on the less foundational theological issues. That's how I read it, anyway.

[Daisy]

Calvinism is included within orthodoxy. When "orthodox" is written with Christian and a little o, it refers to Christianity that is consistent with the creeds (Apostles, Nicene). Orthodox Christianity in this sense includes Catholocism, the Orthodox Church (Eastern Orthodox, etc.), Protestants, Pentecostals, etc.

 

What I read him to say was not that the series excludes orthodox Christian thought (which would make it heretical), but that it doesn't allow for differences of doctrine that are present within orthodox Christian tradition. For example, Calvinism is orthodox, but so is Arminianism, yet they do not agree on some doctrine. Protestants and Catholics are both orthodox, yet obviously, there are doctrinal differences. Dr. Wiles is saying he prefers that kids not be taught the "one right view" on the less foundational theological issues. That's how I read it, anyway.

 

Ahhh, okay. Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood him. I definitely need to re-read those comments when I'm not distracted by bickering kids. :D

[Crimson Wife]

It sounds like he has a problem with the idea of a church taking the position that ___ is decisive when it cannot be directly and unquestionably supported by Scripture. So if it's something that different Christian theologians can legitimately debate, it shouldn't be taught as THE truth. But something like YEC, he would say is not really up for debate because of what's written in Genesis (not saying I personally agree with him about that, I just get where he's coming from).

[CLHCO]

Strangely enough, when we used his Astronomy and Physical Science books back in Junior High -- I got the impression from the text Apologia did advocate a young earth POV?? (This was why I didn't continue with them beyond junior high. Especially with Biology.) I like him and respect his work. But I think he may need to be careful with that blog as the new owner could say it is slander? Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

 

I spoke with him several times a few years ago when deciding on science and listened to some of his presentations. He is definitely young earth and even when he claims to try to encourage kids to think, he's not quite as open as he thinks he is. One can lead a belief through "thought provoking questions". I admit I was also turned off on how he was very critically dismissive of other science curriculum and approaches in a way the others were not of him - even among other clearly young earth programs. I really don't mind a person believing theirs to be the best approach, of course he does, but he came off almost slanderous to the other programs and needs to watch his words.

 

I also don't mind a program going literal 6-day Calvinist, it's great for literal 6-day Calvinists even if I'm not, but that said, if he can't agree with the doctrinal issues, he is right to leave rather than sign his name to something that he cannot personally represent.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Strangely enough, when we used his Astronomy and Physical Science books back in Junior High -- I got the impression from the text Apologia did advocate a young earth POV?? (This was why I didn't continue with them beyond junior high. Especially with Biology.) I like him and respect his work. But I think he may need to be careful with that blog as the new owner could say it is slander? Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

 

He advocates that point of view as his scientific viewpoint. He does not advocate it as a fundamental of what makes you a Christian. That is a key part of his disagreement, I think.

[mommaduck]

He advocates that point of view as his scientific viewpoint. He does not advocate it as a fundamental of what makes you a Christian. That is a key part of his disagreement, I think.

I just wish he was as open about other things. He has an issue with people not doing something because they say so, but he has one topic that he has pounded on his own site in the past, and in emails, that if they disagree with him, then they are at the height of stupidity (vaccinations, in case anyone wants to know).

[Onceuponatime]

Just so everyone can see what he said. This is from the comments section. He is replying to a question for more information.

 

Well, good for him! That is a refreshing attitude.

[Guest Katia]

Strangely enough, when we used his Astronomy and Physical Science books back in Junior High -- I got the impression from the text Apologia did advocate a young earth POV?? (This was why I didn't continue with them beyond junior high. Especially with Biology.) I like him and respect his work. But I think he may need to be careful with that blog as the new owner could say it is slander? Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

 

And this is part of his problem: because you purchased a book from Apologia Ministries, you assume that Dr. Wile authored the book. He did not author an Astronomy book. That is authored by Jeannie Fulbright. Dr. Wile's Physical Science book does not include a discussion of earth origins.

[Guest Katia]

And yet, if I'm not wrong, hasn't he done something very similar in his science books by drawing a line between young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists? I don't know that much about his curriculum though.

 

That is just my impression. I could well be wrong.

 

My dds used Dr. Wile's high school texts, and to my knowledge, he never drew any lines between creationists and theistic evolutionists. He did state that he believed in creation because of scientific evidence and stated what that evidence was, but my dds, at no time, felt they 'had' to believe creation was 'right' and evolution was 'wrong' by anything that Dr. Wile wrote in his text. Neither of them felt he was pushing his agenda; just stating what he, as the author/scientist, believed to be scientific fact. We did make sure both girls read books presenting evolution as fact and the scientific evidence used in that line of thought so that they would have a completely balanced viewpoint and understanding of both theories, but both girls said Dr. Wile didn't dwell on either of those theories, but rather was more focused on teaching actual science.

[LizzyBee]

He advocates that point of view as his scientific viewpoint. He does not advocate it as a fundamental of what makes you a Christian. That is a key part of his disagreement, I think.

 

:iagree: He actually rejected evolution based on his opinion as a scientist before he became a Christian.

[WishboneDawn]

It sounds like he has a problem with the idea of a church taking the position that ___ is decisive when it cannot be directly and unquestionably supported by Scripture. So if it's something that different Christian theologians can legitimately debate, it shouldn't be taught as THE truth. But something like YEC, he would say is not really up for debate because of what's written in Genesis (not saying I personally agree with him about that, I just get where he's coming from).

 

I don't think he's going any further then saying he doesn't agree with a curriculum excluding certain Christian views. As for YEC he did make a comment that implied it was partly the trend towards an exclusively YEC view with the new owners that troubled him.

[WishboneDawn]

Strangely enough, when we used his Astronomy and Physical Science books back in Junior High -- I got the impression from the text Apologia did advocate a young earth POV?? (This was why I didn't continue with them beyond junior high. Especially with Biology.) I like him and respect his work. But I think he may need to be careful with that blog as the new owner could say it is slander? Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

 

I can't imagine how anything he wrote could be read as slander. He simply stated he was leaving because of a difference of opinion, where the differences lay and why he thought his opinions had merit. There was nothing mean or even disrespectful in what he wrote.

[Daisy]

My dds used Dr. Wile's high school texts, and to my knowledge, he never drew any lines between creationists and theistic evolutionists. He did state that he believed in creation because of scientific evidence and stated what that evidence was, but my dds, at no time, felt they 'had' to believe creation was 'right' and evolution was 'wrong' by anything that Dr. Wile wrote in his text. Neither of them felt he was pushing his agenda; just stating what he, as the author/scientist, believed to be scientific fact. We did make sure both girls read books presenting evolution as fact and the scientific evidence used in that line of thought so that they would have a completely balanced viewpoint and understanding of both theories, but both girls said Dr. Wile didn't dwell on either of those theories, but rather was more focused on teaching actual science.

 

I guess my impression of his materials from this board hasn't been that, so it is nice to have that clarified. Thanks.

[Daisy]

 

I also don't mind a program going literal 6-day Calvinist, it's great for literal 6-day Calvinists even if I'm not, but that said, if he can't agree with the doctrinal issues, he is right to leave rather than sign his name to something that he cannot personally represent.

 

:iagree: And I am a literal 6-day Calvinist. But if this is indeed the truth, I would hope (and expect) Apologia to be forthcoming about their pov. As it currently stands they are claiming that Bible study to be nondenominational. Is it or is it not?

 

https://apologia.securesites.net/pdfs/wigfaq.pdf

 

[fhjmom]

Dr. Wile's Physical Science book does not include a discussion of earth origins.

 

 

While he doesn't specifically cover the beginning of the universe, I would have to say that his Physical Science text definitely supports a YEC view point. I just wanted to clarify since someone might take this statement to mean that it wasn't YEC.

[Teachin'Mine]

Wow. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and for posting the link to his blog. It's interesting to read.

[MyBlueLobsters]

I have the first book in the worldview series he was talking about. Summit ministries put it out. I love it. As far as our family goes, it is exactly the "Biblical worldview" I want to teach my kids.

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree: And I am a literal 6-day Calvinist. But if this is indeed the truth, I would hope (and expect) Apologia to be forthcoming about their pov. As it currently stands they are claiming that Bible study to be nondenominational. Is it or is it not?

 

https://apologia.securesites.net/pdfs/wigfaq.pdf

 

 

Contrary to their claims it would be completely unacceptable to many mainline Protestants like Anglicans and Evangelical Lutherans. Of course, for many of those, it would always have been unacceptable, YEC or not.

[MyBlueLobsters]

I have to say, and my opinion might change as we go along, I don't see much of a Calvinist bent in the curriculum. I would never have thought it was written to that genre of people.

[LizzyBee]

:iagree: And I am a literal 6-day Calvinist. But if this is indeed the truth, I would hope (and expect) Apologia to be forthcoming about their pov. As it currently stands they are claiming that Bible study to be nondenominational. Is it or is it not?

 

https://apologia.securesites.net/pdfs/wigfaq.pdf

 

 

I think Mr. Wile and Mr. Carman are seeing things from two different perspectives and neither of them is lying or trying to mislead anyone. As someone who is not a Calvinist, Jay notices a subtle Calvinist bent in the way the books interpret Bible verses, etc. I suspect that Calvinism is so ingrained in Mr. Carman that he sees Calvinism/Biblical/Christian as the same thing and it doesn't occur to him that there could be an alternative interpretation of some verses/doctrines that is equally valid. Imo, they're both telling the truth; they just have different opinions regarding what the truth is.

[Mrs.W]

If you haven't read the comments over at his blog, this might help clarify some things (quoted):

 

jlwile says:

August 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Thanks for your kind words, Kimberly. Calvinism is not focused on in the two books of the series that I have read. It’s not like the books go through and teach each of the TULIP points. It’s just that when I read the books, I see a very Calvinist view of God and our relationship to Him. For example, in the manuscript I read of Who Am I, which is the second book in the series, page 60 has the statement:

 

Every believer has been hand-picked by God, and each one shares a common purpose—to sing His praises.

 

This is the lesson the authors draw from 1 Peter 2:9. However, that is a Calvinist view of the verse. Indeed, the very phrase “hand-picked by God” is common among Calvinists. Arminianists see 1 Peter 2:9 as saying what God has chosen believers TO DO, not that He has hand-picked the people who will become believers.

 

Now I have to admit that I am rather sensitive to these things. To most people, these kinds of implicit statements might not be a problem. To me, however, they are a major problem.

 

Please note that I am NOT telling you not to use Apologia’s worldview series. I would never use it, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. What I am telling you is that the worldview given in those books is very specific, and there is no room for the idea that there are other Christians who have differing ideas but are still orthodox, serious Christians. This goes directly against what I tried to instill in my books.

 

If nothing else, I would suggest that the people teaching co-op classes read the book thoroughly before deciding to use it. That way, they will know if they are comfortable using it. Of course, I would recommend that of ANY book, especially the ones I wrote!

 

And if you look at his category "Age of the Earth" you will find this intro to one of his posts:

 

Posted by jlwile on September 8, 2009

 

Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows two things about me. First, I am a young-earth creationist. Second, I am skeptical of most young-earth creationist theology. For example, as I have written before, while I believe that the days in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days, I do not think they must be interpreted that way. Indeed, a good number of early church fathers didn’t interpret them that way. They didn’t think the days in Genesis 1 had anything to do with time. Instead, they thought the days were simply a means by which Creation could be ordered. Since many in the early church were willing to think that the days in Genesis 1 were not 24-hour days, why do many modern young-earth creationists insist that they must be 24-hour days?

Edited August 18, 2010 by argsmommy
second quote is from a post not a comment

[lakerks]

Wow. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and for posting the link to his blog. It's interesting to read.

 

:iagree:

 

Also, the quotes from his blog are very helpful. Thanks for posting!

[Donna A.]

:iagree:

 

Also, the quotes from his blog are very helpful. Thanks for posting!

 

:iagree: I haven't been able to pull up the blog to read it for myself, so I've appreciated reading the quotes posted. I've tried it on two different computers with two different browsers, tried getting to it through the Apologia site (can no longer find a direct link, for obvious reasons), and tried getting to it through Google. Can someone post a different link through which I might be able to access it? To the home page of his blog, perhaps? Although I tried that, too.... :glare:

[Mrs.W]

Here's the link to his blog.

 

Here's the link to the post announcing his resignation.

[Nestof3]

I wonder why he sold the company.

[Donna A.]

Here's the link to his blog.

 

Here's the link to the post announcing his resignation.

 

Thanks, Kellie. Unfortunately I couldn't pull up either one of those links. :confused: It keeps telling me "the connection to the server was reset while the page was loading". I have Firefox on this computer. On my laptop where I have IE, I get a different "could not connect" message.

 

I'm not having any trouble pulling up other sites... just his.

[DarcyB]

I'm honestly not worried about his split. He won't be selling Apologia products when he opens his new line. But thankfully, we also have the full line of HS level books that he wrote thanks to my best friend who just finished homeschooling her son..and passed along all the product to us.

 

It would bother me, in a few years, if I needed it to find editions had not been edited by him for updates, unless I had prior knowledge of said updates. It's not that I'm a huge fan of him, per se, that I can't handle someone else editing, but I know there's a differing sense of philosophy, and I'd want to be sure the edits stayed in line with that. Weird tangent, yes, but it's about all I'm really concerned with in the split.

 

Whether he speaks for that company or not doesn't effect how I think about the books he authored on their own. And I hope it doesn't effect many others, either. The split really doesn't effect how good those science books are.