Dr. Jay Wile left Apologia

[DarcyB]

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.

 

Donna- it might not hurt to delete your cookies and try again.

[Audrey]

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

 

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

 

Meep!Meep!

 

Me, too.

[Renee in NC]

I wonder why he sold the company.

 

Retirement?

[Donna A.]

Retirement?

 

Or just didn't need the company anymore?

[Renee in NC]

Or just didn't need the company anymore?

 

And the headaches that come from owning a company?:D

 

If I were him, I would have sold it in a heartbeat.

[justamouse]

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

 

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.

 

Reminds me of Vertias Press. Subtle, but there to those who see it. I hated having to fine comb out their Omnibus, then just gave it up all together.

 

I cannot believe I am saying this because I so adamantly disagreed with his views-but GO WILE!!!! I'm thrilled he's making the break and I can't wait to see what he comes out with.

Edited August 18, 2010 by justamouse

[fhjmom]

I wonder why he sold the company.

 

From the news post on the Apologia website when the company sold:

However, success and growth also revealed two uncomfortable facts. Dr. Wile didn't really want to be a publisher; he wanted to help families teach science. "Both Kathleen and I don't like business' in any way, any aspect of the business," he said. "I like science, she likes science, so we needed a point where I could go back to doing what I like and I'm good at." However, their daughter didn't want to inherit the business either, which meant the Wiles needed to find someone with "business savvy" who understood homeschooling and shared their vision of Apologia as a ministry.

 

Link: http://www.apologia.com/news.php?item=34

[Dina in Oklahoma]

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.

 

:iagree: That is my take as well.

[angela in ohio]

Ugh. I feel for him (even though I'm one of those icky Calvinists ;).) I know what it's like to build something up to help others, then bring someone else alongside, and then have to leave to avoid constant disagreement. It is heartbreaking and few people understand.

[Donna A.]

Ugh. I feel for him (even though I'm one of those icky Calvinists ;).) I know what it's like to build something up to help others, then bring someone else alongside, and then have to leave to avoid constant disagreement. It is heartbreaking and few people understand.

 

But we don't which party it was that couldn't "live" with the other one's viewpoint in that business relationship.

[mims]

Thought this quote would help those discussing where he stands on young earth. This is further down in the comments section of his blog:

 

 

 

1. If they do change the books I wrote, they will have to remove my name. Thus, if my name is on them, they have not been changed in any substantive way.

2. I am a young-earth creationist, but I do not consider old-earth creationists to be unBiblical. When I discuss the issue in my books, I try to give both sides as honestly as I can, but I stress to the student that I am biased towards a young earth.

[angela in ohio]

But we don't which party it was that couldn't "live" with the other one's viewpoint in that business relationship.

 

Are you saying you think they fired him? I didn't think of that.

[Donna A.]

Are you saying you think they fired him? I didn't think of that.

 

Oh no, I'm not suggesting that! I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that they asked him to step out, but I don't know. I was just referring to the fact that Dr. Wile seems to be awfully angry about something, and the idea that it's *just* because he disagrees with the theology of the new owners and what they've written in the Biblical Worldview curriculum doesn't make sense. Didn't he know their theology before now? It's been two years since he sold the company, right?

 

Some things just don't add up. :glare:

[TXMary2]

Oh no, I'm not suggesting that! I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that they asked him to step out, but I don't know. I was just referring to the fact that Dr. Wile seems to be awfully angry about something, and the idea that it's *just* because he disagrees with the theology of the new owners and what they've written in the Biblical Worldview curriculum doesn't make sense. Didn't he know their theology before now? It's been two years since he sold the company, right?

 

Some things just don't add up. :glare:

 

That's interesting....I have not perceived him as angry at all. He seems to be saying that in good conscience he couldn't stay associated with a company whose beliefs no longer represent his own.

[justamouse]

Ugh. I feel for him (even though I'm one of those icky Calvinists ;).) I know what it's like to build something up to help others, then bring someone else alongside, and then have to leave to avoid constant disagreement. It is heartbreaking and few people understand.

 

 

Not icky, not at all. But they are going to write it with a Calvinist slant, just say it's for Calvnist homeschoolers! There is no harm in preaching to the choir with specific doctrines, but when I think "Christan" homeschooling curric, I'm thinking the umbrella, not one particular doctrine. Kinda like TWTM! :D

[Daisy]

Here is a lengthy response by Apologia

 

http://www.apologia.com/news.php?item=70

[mommaduck]

Good response :)

[LizzyBee]

Here is a lengthy response by Apologia

 

http://www.apologia.com/news.php?item=70

 

That was a very classy response.

[TXMary2]

Here is a lengthy response by Apologia

 

http://www.apologia.com/news.php?item=70

 

 

That was great! I feel so much better now.:001_smile:

[tex-mex]

That was a very classy response.

:iagree:

[DarcyB]

oops..sorry - didn't see someone else had posted as well.

Edited August 20, 2010 by DarcyB

[simka2]

I know there is always one out there...but that response gave me the heebie-jeebies!!!!!!

 

I don't feel the need to get into specifics here about what was so concerning, but I read thru the whole thing and felt nauseaous. SOme of that is do to my own background with conservative CEO types, but I have learned a lot from those experiences.

 

Again, it only served to increase my respect for Dr. Wile!

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Here's a response from Apologia:

 

http://www.apologia.com/news.php?item=70

I thought they were both very respectful of one another and appreciate some clarity as leaving the public in the dark often gives the wrong impression.

[i.love.lucy]

I know there is always one out there...but that response gave me the heebie-jeebies!!!!!!

 

I don't feel the need to get into specifics here about what was so concerning, but I read thru the whole thing and felt nauseaous. SOme of that is do to my own background with conservative CEO types, but I have learned a lot from those experiences.

 

Again, it only served to increase my respect for Dr. Wile!

Well, I didn't get that at all. Why can't we just respect both of them? They disagree so they went separate ways. It's not that earth-shattering, really. I've quit a job for the same reasons. Difference of opinion and going in different directions. *shrug*

[Jean in Newcastle]

Well, I didn't get that at all. Why can't we just respect both of them? They disagree so they went separate ways. It's not that earth-shattering, really. I've quit a job for the same reasons. Difference of opinion and going in different directions. *shrug*

 

:iagree:

[dani3boys]

Well, I didn't get that at all. Why can't we just respect both of them? They disagree so they went separate ways. It's not that earth-shattering, really. I've quit a job for the same reasons. Difference of opinion and going in different directions. *shrug*

 

 

:iagree:

 

Why do we have to choose sides when both sides are being respectful of the other and are trying not to stir up controversy or bad feelings?

[simka2]

Well, I didn't get that at all. Why can't we just respect both of them? They disagree so they went separate ways. It's not that earth-shattering, really. I've quit a job for the same reasons. Difference of opinion and going in different directions. *shrug*

 

 

So I read thru a bunch of comments about how great the response from Apologia is...but if I don't agree I'm divisive? Kinda like the person who sees the problem, becomes the problem?

 

I don't get it? Why is only one type of response acceptable?

[CLHCO]

So I read thru a bunch of comments about how great the response from Apologia is...but if I don't agree I'm divisive? Kinda like the person who sees the problem, becomes the problem?

 

I don't get it? Why is only one type of response acceptable?

 

I think the problem is that your response was vague, without any specific examples, while making a strong charge.

[Jean in Newcastle]

So I read thru a bunch of comments about how great the response from Apologia is...but if I don't agree I'm divisive? Kinda like the person who sees the problem, becomes the problem?

 

I don't get it? Why is only one type of response acceptable?

 

The response was great because it was respectful, it stated their view (which they are entitled to have) and have made an effort to let people know where they stand so that they can choose if this curriculum is one that will fit their family's needs. If you don't agree with where they stand or how they write their books, then don't use them.

[TXMary2]

I think the problem is that your response was vague, without any specific examples, while making a strong charge.

 

:iagree:

[simka2]

I think the problem is that your response was vague, without any specific examples, while making a strong charge.

 

I think I gave as much info as anyone else, and I was even gracious in aknowledgeing that some of my reaction was because of my backround.

 

I specifically didn't go line by line with why, because I thought that would be "dis-respectful."

 

Again, I was just giving my opinion of Apologia's response. WOW!:glare:

[Guest Katia]

I think the problem is that your response was vague, without any specific examples, while making a strong charge.

 

Ok, now I'm confused. What strong charge did she make? I read that the response gave her heebie-jeebies and made her feel nauseous. Just her opinion and the way it made her feel, with the explanation that her past experiences with these types of responses influenced her opinion.

 

Sorry, but there is no strong charge nor call to divisiveness; just a gal giving her differing opinion.

 

It's ok, Simka, you are allowed to give your opinion and how you felt when you read it. That's perfectly acceptable. Just because you don't conform to the opinions of others does not automatically make you divisive.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ok, now I'm confused. What strong charge did she make? I read that the response gave her heebie-jeebies and made her feel nauseous. Just her opinion and the way it made her feel, with the explanation that her past experiences with these types of responses influenced her opinion.

 

Sorry, but there is no strong charge nor call to divisiveness; just a gal giving her differing opinion.

 

It's ok, Simka, you are allowed to give your opinion and how you felt when you read it. That's perfectly acceptable. Just because you don't conform to the opinions of others does not automatically make you divisive.

 

The problem was saying that their response made her nauseated. I think that both Dr. Wile and Apologia used true tolerance in dealing with each other. They each have strong beliefs, some of which clash with each other. They acknowledge those beliefs and outline some of them. They made appropriate choices because of those beliefs. But neither stoops to calling each other nauseating.

[Guest Katia]

The problem was saying that their response made her nauseated. I think that both Dr. Wile and Apologia used true tolerance in dealing with each other. They each have strong beliefs, some of which clash with each other. They acknowledge those beliefs and outline some of them. They made appropriate choices because of those beliefs. But neither stoops to calling each other nauseating.

 

And neither did Simka call either of them nauseating. She simply stated how the response made *her* feel....which was nauseated. She did not say that the response was nauseating. There is a difference.

 

I feel nauseated when I walk into a room full of people that I don't know, but that does not mean that I am saying those people are nauseating. It's just how it makes me feel. Very, very different.

[simka2]

The problem was saying that their response made her nauseated. I think that both Dr. Wile and Apologia used true tolerance in dealing with each other. They each have strong beliefs, some of which clash with each other. They acknowledge those beliefs and outline some of them. They made appropriate choices because of those beliefs. But neither stoops to calling each other nauseating.

 

No, it made me fell physically nauseous. I think I need a Xanax!:D

[simka2]

And neither did Simka call either of them nauseating. She simply stated how the response made *her* feel....which was nauseated. She did not say that the response was nauseating. There is a difference.

 

I feel nauseated when I walk into a room full of people that I don't know, but that does not mean that I am saying those people are nauseating. It's just how it makes me feel. Very, very different.

 

 

Ah.....someone gets me. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

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.

That is a good position, IMO. :D

 

I am just upset that my nice neat plans of using Sonlight all the way through for science might be interfered with.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Originally Posted by Jean in Newcastle

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.

 

 

That is a good position, IMO. :D

 

I am just upset that my nice neat plans of using Sonlight all the way through for science might be interfered with.

 

Having read his blog (prior to this) he believes in a young earth because of science and doesn't believe the Bible has anything to say about it (my paraphrase), which is why he has problems with the theology of Answers In Genesis/ICR/etc. However, while those organizations believe the Bible has much to say about YEC none of them would say that your salvation is dependent upon being a YEC.

[Lovedtodeath]

2Actually, Ken Ham thinks that OE and Evolution are crippling to some people's faith.

 

I big fan of Ken Ham. I love his books. (except a couple that were rather redundant. lol) I don't agree with everything he believes though to find anyone that I completely agree with is rather impossible. lol

Edited August 20, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Actually, Ken Ham thinks that OE and Evolution are crippling to some people's faith.

 

I big fan of Ken Ham. I love his books. (except a couple that were rather redundant. lol) I don't agree with everything he believes though.

Yes, but crippling someone's faith is very different than being necessary for salvation. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, but crippling someone's faith is very different than being necessary for salvation. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

No. I completely agree with you! I was just clarifying. :)

[thepoteetteam]

I did read that blog. I would love to know more. We just started using Apologia.

[Plucky]

The response was great because it was respectful, it stated their view (which they are entitled to have) and have made an effort to let people know where they stand so that they can choose if this curriculum is one that will fit their family's needs. If you don't agree with where they stand or how they write their books, then don't use them.

 

:iagree: Plus, they are just science books. I use and like Apologia but I'm not particularly loyal to the brand. If it meets my needs I'll use it. :001_smile:

[CLHCO]

I think I gave as much info as anyone else, and I was even gracious in aknowledgeing that some of my reaction was because of my backround.

 

I specifically didn't go line by line with why, because I thought that would be "dis-respectful."

 

Again, I was just giving my opinion of Apologia's response. WOW!:glare:

 

Hmmm, I think my response was over-read. I wasn't saying you weren't allowed to feel any given way, I was saying why others likely pounced on you for it because it was vague, and yes, I think something making you feel nauseous from reading that is looked at as very negative and that is what I meant by a strong charge, though the wording maybe wasn't the best choice. I wasn't personally trying to pounce, you just left me with far more questions with your response than enlightenment. Why do such things make you nauseous? Was there something you're "in the know" from that we are not and should be before dealing with large Christian CEO types?

 

No, really. I am curious, not accusing. You didn't give any examples, and feelings do not poof out of nowhere. You said you had experience that backed that feeling. Is there something crooked in the response we were missing, or something just too "tidy", etc.?

 

I had a mild criticism of Dr. Wile I mentioned in an earlier post, though I agree and respect his decision. I tried to give some reason why. It wasn't him or his work, I just think he doesn't use caution or grace when dealing with anything that isn't in line with his thinking, from my past experience while speaking to him and hearing lectures when looking for a science program, which could cause him unnecessary trouble or misunderstandings. In truth, he rubs me the wrong way... from this experience to which I mentioned. Others can disagree with this sort of thing being allowed to rub me the wrong way, but at least they know why it does, rather than simply thinking maybe I'm just critical of crooked teeth or something.

 

No I have officially over-explained. :tongue_smilie:

[Lostinabook]

...I just think he doesn't use caution or grace when dealing with anything that isn't in line with his thinking...

 

:iagree:

 

Every time I read something he's written I think of John Holtzmann

[simka2]

Hmmm, I think my response was over-read. I wasn't saying you weren't allowed to feel any given way, I was saying why others likely pounced on you for it because it was vague, and yes, I think something making you feel nauseous from reading that is looked at as very negative and that is what I meant by a strong charge, though the wording maybe wasn't the best choice. I wasn't personally trying to pounce, you just left me with far more questions with your response than enlightenment. Why do such things make you nauseous? Was there something you're "in the know" from that we are not and should be before dealing with large Christian CEO types?

 

No, really. I am curious, not accusing. You didn't give any examples, and feelings do not poof out of nowhere. You said you had experience that backed that feeling. Is there something crooked in the response we were missing, or something just too "tidy", etc.?

 

I had a mild criticism of Dr. Wile I mentioned in an earlier post, though I agree and respect his decision. I tried to give some reason why. It wasn't him or his work, I just think he doesn't use caution or grace when dealing with anything that isn't in line with his thinking, from my past experience while speaking to him and hearing lectures when looking for a science program, which could cause him unnecessary trouble or misunderstandings. In truth, he rubs me the wrong way... from this experience to which I mentioned. Others can disagree with this sort of thing being allowed to rub me the wrong way, but at least they know why it does, rather than simply thinking maybe I'm just critical of crooked teeth or something.

 

No I have officially over-explained. :tongue_smilie:

 

I think I've beaten you in the over explaination game with all my pm's! :D Darn that 5000 word limit...okay and the fact that I couldn't figure out to save my response to some sort of link. :tongue_smilie:

[CLHCO]

I think I've beaten you in the over explaination game with all my pm's! :D Darn that 5000 word limit...okay and the fact that I couldn't figure out to save my response to some sort of link. :tongue_smilie:

 

And I do appreciate it. I look forward to combing through it all. ;)

[simka2]

Hmmm, I think my response was over-read. I wasn't saying you weren't allowed to feel any given way, I was saying why others likely pounced on you for it because it was vague, and yes, I think something making you feel nauseous from reading that is looked at as very negative and that is what I meant by a strong charge, though the wording maybe wasn't the best choice. I wasn't personally trying to pounce, you just left me with far more questions with your response than enlightenment. Why do such things make you nauseous? Was there something you're "in the know" from that we are not and should be before dealing with large Christian CEO types?

 

No, really. I am curious, not accusing. You didn't give any examples, and feelings do not poof out of nowhere. You said you had experience that backed that feeling.

 

Actually, I said that my "experience could be influencing my feelings....it's a bit different. Like when something triggers someone, because of something they've been thru. :D

 

Is there something crooked in the response we were missing, or something just too "tidy", etc.?

 

I had a mild criticism of Dr. Wile I mentioned in an earlier post, though I agree and respect his decision. I tried to give some reason why. It wasn't him or his work, I just think he doesn't use caution or grace when dealing with anything that isn't in line with his thinking, from my past experience while speaking to him and hearing lectures when looking for a science program, which could cause him unnecessary trouble or misunderstandings. In truth, he rubs me the wrong way... from this experience to which I mentioned. Others can disagree with this sort of thing being allowed to rub me the wrong way, but at least they know why it does, rather than simply thinking maybe I'm just critical of crooked teeth or something.

 

No I have officially over-explained. :tongue_smilie:

 

That's why I was a bit shocked, by the reponses to my response. (Oh, how the forum has ruined me :D)

 

Here, I was simply saying I had a totally different reaction to apologia's statement...with the caveat that, it might just be me though! :)

[CLHCO]

That's why I was a bit shocked, by the reponses to my response. (Oh, how the forum has ruined me :D)

 

Here, I was simply saying I had a totally different reaction to apologia's statement...with the caveat that, it might just be me though! :)

 

Gotcha. I was over reading it.