Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Denise Allen

Dr. Jay Wile- arrogant

Recommended Posts

But Faithe, Wile is not presenting differing theories. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories, and are not supported by scientific method or scientific evidence. Nor does the scientific evidence support the notion of a 6000-10000 year-old earth.

 

Presenting "opinion" as if it is valid science is the real problem with Wile's so-called "science" books.

 

Bill

 

See what I mean??? This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks Bill!!!

 

Faithe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Wile says:

 

Because people in California are refusing the whooping cough vaccine in large numbers, whooping cough is rearing its ugly head there. Children are needlessly becoming sick and dying, and we have the misinformation spread by anti-vaccine people to thank for it.

 

He is speaking the truth. I don't respect the anti-scientific stance of his biology books, but on this point Wile is spot-on.

 

Bill

 

 

:iagree: We are using our first Apologia text now because dd chose it. She didn't want to use an evolutionary biology text nor to use another BJU text. It's okay, but already she's found at least one apparent mistake (from her Chem class) and his definition of things in symbiosis is not the same as what I learned when I minored in Biology. However, I'm not sure yet if the official definintions have been modified since then. I haven't read the text and am simply grading her tests, revising the labs, etc. I think some of the lab work is too easy, but I'm no expert in grade 9/10 science. What I mean by too easy is that I don't see enough thought provoking questions in the labs, just instructions.

 

Now, if by anti-scientific Bill is referring to the lack of evolutionary theory, then I agree to disagree. I want a text that handles evolution/ID/creationism separately. The reason I don't find it scientific enough is that I'd like more investigation, eg a lab where dc use gram stains and do more identification type slides (but you can't go too far without expensive books). It's okay, but not great, IMO. I just don't have the time to design her labs with everything else I have going on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct. People (children) will get sick and some will die because of the misinformation spread by anti-vaccinators. Wile is correct on that point.

 

Wrong on a lot of other things, but correct about this.

 

Bill

 

One of my great or else great great grandmothers had 4 dc die in one week from diphtheria. Five of her dc had it at that time. She'd lost two other dc to it in Iceland prior to that. She was devastated, and one the dd who survived (she was a teen at that time) left home, she had her dh had to move away. The surviving dd was in the same area as 2 older siblings and one or two more were born later. If you read ALL of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, you'll remember that her husband suffered permanent damage from diphtheria.

 

There are too many myths and half-truths about vaccinations out there. Many parents now didn't grow up seeing otherwise healthy adults with living with polio-induced paralysis. My mother isn't paralysed, but has some permanent nerve damage from having polio. And these are the survivors.

 

While I realize that there have been a few vaccinations made with questionable ethics, I for one am thankful that we no longer see small pox (I'm old enough to have been vaccinated--twice because we moved to Europe for a year when I was a preschoooler). btw, it was cow pox that was used for the vaccine, not small pox--that was Jenner's contribution.

 

Not all diseases can be wiped out, but humans were the only vectors for small pox so it was much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(hugs) on the frustration and all of that from the vent and how it affects things.

 

What about Rainbow Science and whatever the high school one is called?

here's a link to look for other science things

 

http://www.beginningspublishing.com/

 

-crystal

 

We are a very liberal, secular family and we are using both Apologia (Marine Bio) and Rainbow--Spectrum (Chemistry). My D was not raised in a "Christian" home, per se, and she is very spiritual, tending to empathize with people of all religions.

 

D did NOT like the "in Creation" wording in Apologia and I told her to mentally replace with "in our world" or "on our planet". She was also very concerned about the science behind the writing, because she is considering anthropolgical biology as a major and that has everything to do with evolution! I told her to look at any references to creationism as merely another "scientific" theory which may or may not be eventually proved with further research.

 

So then she opened up the (Rainbow) Spectrum Chemistry and there was the word "God" and D turned to me and said "Mom, is this another one of those religious books?" and I told her the writer is a Christian and he did mention God but he left it at that, for each of us to interpret God in our own way. D was much more satisfied with that and has found Spectrum to be very agreeable with wonderful labs (though to be honest, Marine Bio is her favorite course and Chemistry her least favorite).

 

I agree with the others, sometimes it is better to not know about an author's personal beliefs. There are some great works of art produced by some contentious people. Ignorance is bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karin I think that the DIVE DVD's give more opportunity to do the kinds of labs you're talking about. There's an actual lab report to fill out, and the outcome of the experiment isn't known ahead of time. Maybe someone who has used this for Biology could comment on whether it has what you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my great or else great great grandmothers had 4 dc die in one week from diphtheria. Five of her dc had it at that time. She'd lost two other dc to it in Iceland prior to that. She was devastated, and one the dd who survived (she was a teen at that time) left home, she had her dh had to move away. The surviving dd was in the same area as 2 older siblings and one or two more were born later. If you read ALL of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, you'll remember that her husband suffered permanent damage from diphtheria.

 

There are too many myths and half-truths about vaccinations out there. Many parents now didn't grow up seeing otherwise healthy adults with living with polio-induced paralysis. My mother isn't paralysed, but has some permanent nerve damage from having polio. And these are the survivors.

 

While I realize that there have been a few vaccinations made with questionable ethics, I for one am thankful that we no longer see small pox (I'm old enough to have been vaccinated--twice because we moved to Europe for a year when I was a preschoooler). btw, it was cow pox that was used for the vaccine, not small pox--that was Jenner's contribution.

 

Not all diseases can be wiped out, but humans were the only vectors for small pox so it was much easier.

And there are those of us that have children that, for legitimate medical reasons, can NOT be vaccinated (back by our doctors) and yet we are called "idiots" and "spreading misinformation" by others, when our children and their reactions DO exist.

 

PS: I'm not 100% anti vax. I believe there are things that should be taken into consideration (an individuals health and family history as well as environment), don't agree with the current vaccination schedule for the populace at large, and against "mandatory" anything that broadbrushes the population at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Faithe, Wile is not presenting differing theories. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories, and are not supported by scientific method or scientific evidence. Nor does the scientific evidence support the notion of a 6000-10000 year-old earth.

 

Presenting "opinion" as if it is valid science is the real problem with Wile's so-called "science" books.

 

Bill

 

 

Only if one calls creationism a scientific theory is it a problem. However, I think in all honesty we have to admit that none of these has yet to be proven by science, which is why evolution is still only a theory. Also, not everyone has to decide to approach science from a purely secular POV. I think abiogenesis takes as big of a leap of faith as does creationism. Since ID encompasses people both with and without faith in a higher being, it's difficult to peg that one. There just isn't one school of ID thought, although Michael Denton, who wrote the first book on it, didn't call it ID. You can question his credentials, but you (not speaking only to you, Ishmael/Bill, but to you in general) really can't diss it without reading it carefully first, and not with a knee jerk reaction. I'm not saying I agree with him, just that one has to really read & see what's there re:evolution. He is no Christian, that's for sure.

 

It's time for me to include one of my favourite links here to help remind us of the origins of falsifiability. Of course, this is just from a lecture and there is an entire book written on this, too, which I'll link. I'm thinking of the part where he points out that science isn't necessarily the only way to truth, but more than that. I also want to remind us that initially he decided that the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable, and I'm still not convinced that abiogenesis meets that criteria.

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html Note, that this is Gould's site,

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286377392&sr=1-1

 

fwiw, while falsification is considered important today, history shows that the paradigm theories in science (such as the evolution is to biology at the moment) change. There is no guarantee that this theory will continue for the rest of mankind's existence. New discoveries could lead to theories such as the cataclysmic theory taking that position. A true scientist is always open to this type of change if the evidence is strong enough. Sadly, most people become set in their ideologies and emotionally attached to them. I have examined the evidence and abandoned the theory of evolution. If I were to renounce my belief in a Creator (not sure how He did it), I would definitely go with the cataclysmic theory unless a number of imprtant things were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt with accepted evolutionary theory which is based on both the theory of uniformitarianism & the philosophy of materialism (this has nothing to do with the acquisition of material things.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my great or else great great grandmothers had 4 dc die in one week from diphtheria. Five of her dc had it at that time. She'd lost two other dc to it in Iceland prior to that. She was devastated, and one the dd who survived (she was a teen at that time) left home, she had her dh had to move away. The surviving dd was in the same area as 2 older siblings and one or two more were born later. If you read ALL of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, you'll remember that her husband suffered permanent damage from diphtheria.

 

There are too many myths and half-truths about vaccinations out there. Many parents now didn't grow up seeing otherwise healthy adults with living with polio-induced paralysis. My mother isn't paralysed, but has some permanent nerve damage from having polio. And these are the survivors.

 

While I realize that there have been a few vaccinations made with questionable ethics, I for one am thankful that we no longer see small pox (I'm old enough to have been vaccinated--twice because we moved to Europe for a year when I was a preschoooler). btw, it was cow pox that was used for the vaccine, not small pox--that was Jenner's contribution.

 

Not all diseases can be wiped out, but humans were the only vectors for small pox so it was much easier.

 

I'm old enough that there was no polio vaccine in release when I was born (although it was released by the time I hit school age).

 

I still remember the vestigial fear among parents when summer hit that the vaccine might not work, and that their children might get polio. The anxiety of neighbors was palpable to a child with sharp-ears.

 

And a class-mate of mine did contract polio. I don't know if she contracted the disease before the release of the polio vaccine or if her parents made a decision not to vaccinate. But she lived with the repercussions of polio, which did not make her life easy.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm old enough that there was no polio vaccine in release when I was born (although it was released by the time I hit school age).

 

I still remember the vestigial fear among parents when summer hit that the vaccine might not work, and that their children might get polio. The anxiety of neighbors was palpable to a child with sharp-ears.

 

And a class-mate of mine did contract polio. I don't know if she contracted the disease before the release of the polio vaccine or if her parents made a decision not to vaccinate. But she lived with the repercussions of polio, which did not make her life easy.

 

Bill

 

Wow, you're older than me! I remember drinking the polio vaccination--it was the only one where I wasn't afraid of the needle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karin I think that the DIVE DVD's give more opportunity to do the kinds of labs you're talking about. There's an actual lab report to fill out' date=' and the outcome of the experiment isn't known ahead of time. Maybe someone who has used this for Biology could comment on whether it has what you're looking for.[/quote']

 

I am using the DIVe, although with BJU (it doesn't matter what text you use with it.) I had compared Apologia and BJU Biology extensively, and the labs on the DIVE are more difficult (thought-provoking) than Apologia. Several of them are AP labs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there are those of us that have children that, for legitimate medical reasons, can NOT be vaccinated (back by our doctors) and yet we are called "idiots" and "spreading misinformation" by others, when our children and their reactions DO exist.

 

PS: I'm not 100% anti vax. I believe there are things that should be taken into consideration (an individuals health and family history as well as environment), don't agree with the current vaccination schedule for the populace at large, and against "mandatory" anything that broadbrushes the population at large.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: I wish I'd rememembered to include that part about dc with medical issues that make vaccinations dangerous. One always has to consider the truly greater risk at charge. I think that the current schedule does need to be revised and that some vaccinations, such as chicken pox, should not be mandatory. I am not opposed to all mandatory vaccinations for travel or public school, but I do agree that every parent ought to have the right to choose if they opt to homeschool even if I disagree with it most of the time. I'm a big fan of parental rights as well as children's rights, and I think that each of us has to have the freedom of choice. That said, of course I'm horrified that so many people whose children don't have medical issues that prevent vaccination are opting out to the harm of their children. It's right up there with parents who take their dc out of booster seats too early or who let their dc stand in shopping carts (I had a dd knock one over & I didn't let her stand but I turned my back for a couple of seconds--easy to do, isn't it? Once I made the mistake of letting her sit in the wrong part of the cart. Thankfully there were no major injuries, but she could have been brain injured for life had she landed wrong, or broken a bone, suffered a concussion, etc).

 

What irks me is the incredible mythology I've heard about vaccinations IRL. Sure, there have been some bad ethical choices made by greedy pharmaceutical companies, and I dont just mean the use of embryos, but also mercury as a preservative, etc, etc. But that's a separate issue from the issue of whether or not vaccinations are a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karin I think that the DIVE DVD's give more opportunity to do the kinds of labs you're talking about. There's an actual lab report to fill out' date=' and the outcome of the experiment isn't known ahead of time. Maybe someone who has used this for Biology could comment on whether it has what you're looking for.[/quote']

 

 

I am using the DIVe, although with BJU (it doesn't matter what text you use with it.) I had compared Apologia and BJU Biology extensively, and the labs on the DIVE are more difficult (thought-provoking) than Apologia. Several of them are AP labs.

 

 

Thanks. I'll keep this in mind for my next dc. My budget is spent for this year & this dd doesn't like Biology. I'm just adding some of my questions for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree::iagree::iagree: I wish I'd remembered to include that part about dc with medical issues that make vaccinations dangerous. One always has to consider the truly greater risk at charge. I think that the current schedule does need to be revised and that some vaccinations, such as chicken pox, should not be mandatory. I am not opposed to all mandatory vaccinations for travel or public school, but I do agree that every parent ought to have the right to choose if they opt to homeschool even if I disagree with it most of the time. I'm a big fan of parental rights as well as children's rights, and I think that each of us has to have the freedom of choice. That said, of course I'm horrified that so many people whose children don't have medical issues that prevent vaccination are opting out to the harm of their children. It's right up there with parents who take their dc out of booster seats too early or who let their dc stand in shopping carts (I had a dd knock one over & I didn't let her stand but I turned my back for a couple of seconds--easy to do, isn't it? Once I made the mistake of letting her sit in the wrong part of the cart. Thankfully there were no major injuries, but she could have been brain injured for life had she landed wrong, or broken a bone, suffered a concussion, etc).

 

What irks me is the incredible mythology I've heard about vaccinations IRL. Sure, there have been some bad ethical choices made by greedy pharmaceutical companies, and I don't just mean the use of embryos, but also mercury as a preservative, etc, etc. But that's a separate issue from the issue of whether or not vaccinations are a good idea.

Exactly. It would be nice if there could be a balanced discussion on the issue with exceptions accepted and understood. My biggest beef is a parent doing or not doing something without educating themselves of both sides and weighing the risks and benefits before deciding. I think this is why each side starts reacting to each other and then getting extreme (on both sides).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you misunderstand me..... but maybe not. My POV isn't based on his blog. I could careless what he writes outside of his textbooks. My view of him as being unpalatable is based on what he writes in his textbooks. And I do believe his textbooks are a waste of my time b/c I do not believe that carbon dating is so flawed that is has no scientific validity and that those that use carbon dating are duped or just too plain stupid to see that his view on carbon dating is the only correct one.

 

My preference is to teach the theories as those who present them see them and let my children draw their own conclusions. I do not see anything intellectually honest about denigrating an alternative view point.

 

As I wrote earlier, I can respect that people believe YE. However, I do not believe that those that believe YE have cornered the only viable option and every other point of view is wrong. I know which position I hold, but I wouldn't assert that it is 100% the truth b/c I do not believe we can know for sure. Scientifically supported theories, yes. But definitive, no.

 

Actually, my only point is that the majority of textbook authors are biased and will come across that way in their writings - perhaps not in the textbook itself, but in their other writings or speakings. As already stated by another, the bias can also show up in what is left out as well as looking down on those that believe other thoughts.

 

Then I go further to believe that the majority of people (esp science or history types) tend to be that way too - sometimes outspoken, sometimes internal. It's part of our human-ness.

 

I have no problem with anyone picking a textbook they like or shunning one they don't (and explaining why they feel the way they do). We all do that if asked our opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There aren't any Catholic science texts for high school - or at least none that I could find. No matter what you use' date=' you're going to have to do some clarifying on certain issues. I decided to go with Apologia because I'd rather have her read about the world as a wonder of God's creation and teach her how our thinking is different on certain points, than to have her learn from texts which don't even mention God's Hand in any of this.

 

Each family has to decide for themselves, but I'm very happy with our decision. :)[/quote']

 

Thank you, Teachin'Mine. Actually, we aren't Catholic but I will not support a curriculum that claims to be Christian while hating other Christians. I guess that applies to the YE/OE debate also... so much opinion turned to belittling others. I guess my best option is to get the books in my hand and look at them myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his textbooks, this is not how he presents information. He states what "proves" YE and then essentially belittles anyone who can't see how it "disproves" all other theories and data. He is completely dismissive to evidence that contradicts his own. I think he weakens his own arguments by denying the scientific value of other tests, etc. But, regardless, he comes across arrogant and not just "knowledgeable" if you question the validity of his suppositions.

I was referring to him discussing vaccinations online.

 

I question whether he is really belittling people or if he is simply stating his view on a particular theory and that is being taken as belittling the person that adheres to that theory. There is a difference.

 

I am just very uncomfortable with what seems like an unfair attack of a persons character in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was referring to him discussing vaccinations online.

 

I question whether he is really belittling people or if he is simply stating his view on a particular theory and that is being taken as belittling the person that adheres to that theory. There is a difference.

 

I am just very uncomfortable with what seems like an unfair attack of a persons character in this thread.

The OP stated that her issues were with his responses towards others under the comment section. Not his initial, "this is where I stand on X issue."

 

 

nm...found them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But... show me the writings of any science or history person who believes what they do strongly enough to write a textbook on it and I will be able to show you the same traits.

 

Actually, all science people I know (regardless of their individual view or topic) tend to be this way - as do all history people - and I know several of each. They believe what they believe based on their reasons and tend to dismiss others or studies that show things differently. It's rare to find one that can discuss many theories without being biased against those they don't agree with. They often look down upon those that disagree with them.

 

As I mentioned on the other thread about this, my 9th grade ps son just encountered this in his 20th Century class. His teacher believes WWI to be the planet's deadliest war. Oodles of sources found by google will say otherwise (WWII leads this grim statistic by millions). BUT, this history teacher has his reasons and probably learned them from a history prof who held them and preached them. It doesn't matter what others say or what studies show. So, my son learned to double check "facts" even from loved teachers AND that intelligent people can have different views based on their beliefs about the past. He also learned for this class to pick WWI if it's a test question! But if he's on Cash Cab or in other classes, go with WWII. Which does he personally believe? I don't know, but I want him to be able to justify his answer either way he picks (which at his age is to adopt the reasonings of his teacher or those of googled sources we looked at).

 

Personally, I promote knowing as many different theories and WHY as much as one can. Justify why you feel as you do whether you're in the majority or minority. But I've long learned that I'm in a small minority thinking this way. Most, if they care at all, will only learn theories they oppose from those that also oppose them - in order to continue opposing them. It can come across as arrogance quite easily, but it's entirely common within the human-ness of the people involved.

 

I can't say I would never dismiss a book based on arrogance of the author as there are some I refuse to read not wanting to waste my time. I won't buy them as I don't care to support the author. I might look at them via the library.

 

I doubt I would dismiss a textbook I otherwise liked over it. Chances are, if I really dug into it, I'd find something I disagreed with no matter who the author was. If vaccines... no other science text author is likely to be on the "don't vaccinate" side.

:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2774#comments

 

Good grief, the man tries to compare himself to Jesus with the moneychangers and the Pharisees. (uhm, Dr. Wile, some children have DIED...medically documented!...from vaccinations. I don't think Jesus would demand that they vaccinate the rest of their children nor would he demand that every parent just line up rank and file without knowing the risks).

 

Apparently, like many on the extreme other end, Dr Wile wants to pretend that vaccination reactions don't happen (reactions are even stated in the drug literature) or wants the parents of those children to just "shut up and disappear" because they don't suit his stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize you may not have read all the posts under this topic.

 

I am NOT anti vaccine- and I am not sure why you think I am referring to his vaccine article! I am not referring to any of his articles. I am referring to his COMMENTS to others comments who disagree with him. I read through several of the different articles comments.

 

I USE his science and I liked the book. I found his blog and thought it was neat UNTIL I happened to read his comments.

 

If you will take time to read through his mean comments on several of his articles you will see what I mean. I don't think you need to tell people things such as "since thinking is not one of your strong points...." etc. There are many comments by him like that.

 

Disagreeing with someone & standing up for your point is wonderful. But we can disagree with people graciously.

 

He has been posting things online for MANY years and in the past I have read his articles online regarding vaccinations. I have no desire to spend HOURS reading through tons of information and comments right now.

So sorry I missed the EXACT comments you posted. If you wanted to make a case based on particular comments and expect people to know EXACTLY what you were talking about it would have made more sense for you to just come out and say what the comments were instead of expecting others to take the time to read through many, many pages of material.

I agree that saying to someone "since thinking is not one of your strong points...." is rude. Please supply a link to that comment.

 

I am NOT going to get online and spend hours looking for it, as he has spent YEARS posting things online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not such a thing as a perfect textbook.

We just started using Exploring World History this year. On pg 67 it states that "Out of Eden flowed a river that became four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates (Genesis 2:10-14). Thus Eden may have been located in what is now Iraq. ....." Well, this gave my daughter the idea that the Garden of Eden is believed to have been at the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in Iraq. I don't know if more is said on this in other parts of the book. We have not completed it yet.

On a flyer I received from Design Science Association it says " The Tigris and Euphrates rivers of present day Iraq were named by immigrants from the pre-Flood world in memory of their well-remembered former land and rivers. As God had destroyed all life "with the earth" (Genesis 6:13) , the original location of the rivers in or near Eden had been obliterated with the Flood cataclysm,and naturally, would be impossible to locate today " (For more info. see The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris, chpt 4)

 

I do not like how on pg 67 of Exploring World History the idea that the Garden of Eden was near the Euphrates and Tigris rivers is planted in the readers head without giving any other view of what other's have said on this issue. But this is just part of the nature of using textbooks.

I consider our history textbook to be a resource. We use other resources with it.

Science will be more challenging for me. I'm still trying to figure out what we are going to use for the rest of high school for that subject.

 

But... show me the writings of any science or history person who believes what they do strongly enough to write a textbook on it and I will be able to show you the same traits.

 

Actually, all science people I know (regardless of their individual view or topic) tend to be this way - as do all history people - and I know several of each. They believe what they believe based on their reasons and tend to dismiss others or studies that show things differently. It's rare to find one that can discuss many theories without being biased against those they don't agree with. They often look down upon those that disagree with them.

 

As I mentioned on the other thread about this, my 9th grade ps son just encountered this in his 20th Century class. His teacher believes WWI to be the planet's deadliest war. Oodles of sources found by google will say otherwise (WWII leads this grim statistic by millions). BUT, this history teacher has his reasons and probably learned them from a history prof who held them and preached them. It doesn't matter what others say or what studies show. So, my son learned to double check "facts" even from loved teachers AND that intelligent people can have different views based on their beliefs about the past. He also learned for this class to pick WWI if it's a test question! But if he's on Cash Cab or in other classes, go with WWII. Which does he personally believe? I don't know, but I want him to be able to justify his answer either way he picks (which at his age is to adopt the reasonings of his teacher or those of googled sources we looked at).

 

Personally, I promote knowing as many different theories and WHY as much as one can. Justify why you feel as you do whether you're in the majority or minority. But I've long learned that I'm in a small minority thinking this way. Most, if they care at all, will only learn theories they oppose from those that also oppose them - in order to continue opposing them. It can come across as arrogance quite easily, but it's entirely common within the human-ness of the people involved.

 

I can't say I would never dismiss a book based on arrogance of the author as there are some I refuse to read not wanting to waste my time. I won't buy them as I don't care to support the author. I might look at them via the library.

 

I doubt I would dismiss a textbook I otherwise liked over it. Chances are, if I really dug into it, I'd find something I disagreed with no matter who the author was. If vaccines... no other science text author is likely to be on the "don't vaccinate" side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not much fun to have whooping cough as an adult or teen either -- maybe not quite as dangerous, but still not a great way to spend several weeks.

 

:iagree:Same here! Waking up every night, 2-3 times a night, to hold a bucket under your child while they throw up in the midst of the paroxysms of coughing stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:Same here! Waking up every night, 2-3 times a night, to hold a bucket under your child while they throw up in the midst of the paroxysms of coughing stinks.

Lived in a town with near 100% vaccination rate and I remember whooping cough going through the school. Yep, all of us vaccinated kids got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=2774#comments

 

Good grief, the man tries to compare himself to Jesus with the moneychangers and the Pharisees. (uhm, Dr. Wile, some children have DIED...medically documented!...from vaccinations. I don't think Jesus would demand that they vaccinate the rest of their children nor would he demand that every parent just line up rank and file without knowing the risks).

 

Apparently, like many on the extreme other end, Dr Wile wants to pretend that vaccination reactions don't happen (reactions are even stated in the drug literature) or wants the parents of those children to just "shut up and disappear" because they don't suit his stand.

 

When I read his quote regarding this to my husband he was blown away. This was the point where he told me we will no longer be using Wile's books.

How do you compare the Son of God dealing with wrong doers on one had- and your (Jay Wile's) "dealing" with those who disagree with his view on vaccinations (or any topic) on the other???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has been posting things online for MANY years and in the past I have read his articles online regarding vaccinations. I have no desire to spend HOURS reading through tons of information and comments right now.

So sorry I missed the EXACT comments you posted. If you wanted to make a case based on particular comments and expect people to know EXACTLY what you were talking about it would have made more sense for you to just come out and say what the comments were instead of expecting others to take the time to read through many, many pages of material.

I agree that saying to someone "since thinking is not one of your strong points...." is rude. Please supply a link to that comment.

 

I am NOT going to get online and spend hours looking for it, as he has spent YEARS posting things online.

 

Actually, Miss Sherry, you totally have missed the ENTIRE reason I started the post. I said from the very beginning it was because I was saddened by his rudeness and looking for SUGGESTIONS FOR SCIENCE texts. Sorry you tried to make it as if I am on a personal vendetta against him.

 

AND I never asked anyone to read his comments. I simply said I was disappointed in some of them. THEN I asked for people to suggest a text to me.

 

I am sorry that you misread what my beginning questions was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is not such a thing as a perfect textbook.

We just started using Exploring World History this year. On pg 67 it states that "Out of Eden flowed a river that became four rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates (Genesis 2:10-14). Thus Eden may have been located in what is now Iraq. ....." Well, this gave my daughter the idea that the Garden of Eden is believed to have been at the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in Iraq. I don't know if more is said on this in other parts of the book. We have not completed it yet.

On a flyer I received from Design Science Association it says " The Tigris and Euphrates rivers of present day Iraq were named by immigrants from the pre-Flood world in memory of their well-remembered former land and rivers. As God had destroyed all life "with the earth" (Genesis 6:13) , the original location of the rivers in or near Eden had been obliterated with the Flood cataclysm,and naturally, would be impossible to locate today " (For more info. see The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris, chpt 4)

 

I do not like how on pg 67 of Exploring World History the idea that the Garden of Eden was near the Euphrates and Tigris rivers is planted in the readers head without giving any other view of what other's have said on this issue. But this is just part of the nature of using textbooks.

I consider our history textbook to be a resource. We use other resources with it.

Science will be more challenging for me. I'm still trying to figure out what we are going to use for the rest of high school for that subject.

 

Yes, there are some who do believe that Eden was located in relation to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, some use the fossil river through Saudi Arabia and the Red Sea, if this is correct it would be somewhere around Lebanon. Others who believe in the Bible as a historical record use satellite imaging of the fossil river in Saudi Arabia and another coming in from the east, that would actually put it underneath the Persian Gulf. This would mean that the rivers flowed into Eden, not from it. But they also believe that the great flood wasn't worldwide but the result of the "little ice age". There are so many different views on this I think it would be hard to put them all in a one book. :)

 

I can't use any of his books and find it interesting that he has now left Apologia. I find his blog contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please supply a link to that comment.

 

 

 

 

Again, I did not ask or expect anyone to look up Mr. Wile's comments. I was simply expressing my disappointment with what I myself found. This is why I did not include a link to his blog in the first place.

Maybe I should not have expressed my disappointment at all. I just thought I had found a science program I might continue using. Upon finding his blog I was a bit set back. I wondered if I was alone in noticing his attitude. Apparently there are many on both sides. I am not sure why we need to argue about it. I am more than happy to realize and accept we are all humans and we all differ. I always desire to keep my own belief, but agree to disagree graciously.

 

If you would like me to put a link to several of the comments I can. But you will have to tell me how to link to specific comments. I only know how to link to a particular post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not support a curriculum that claims to be Christian while hating other Christians..

 

We had this problem with a BJU science we used. They argued against a Biblical theology we had, but not quite the same version we believe. On the one hand, at least they didn't ignore everyone else, but on he other hand they didn't always apear to be well informed, either. I prefer that someone state their bias and stick with that. (eg I believe in such and such version of evolution, or I believe in x form of ID, or I believe that God created the world such and such a way (or that you're not sure how He did it), etc. There are more options than that, although we don't hear abuot them as often. Put the discussion of other views somewhere else.

 

Biology means the study of life, not evolution/creation/ID. Those are simply ways we interpret what we see in biology, the fossil records, etc. Theories are mankind's attempt to explain what we see. The word theory is used in areas other than science, of course, so the definition we've seen bandied about here has been what constitutes a scientific theory, of course.

 

I have always been a poor typer, but this new keyboard of ours doesn't register every letter I type unless I type much harder than any other keyboard I've ever used even though the keys aren't stiff at first. I like our new computer but loathe this keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Only if one calls creationism a scientific theory is it a problem. However, I think in all honesty we have to admit that none of these has yet to be proven by science, which is why evolution is still only a theory.

 

You are far too intelligent a woman to be stooping to the "evolution is only a theory" arguement.

 

You know very well that the burden of evidence for a complex explanation of natural events to be considered a scientific theory is extraordinarily high. There is no higher position this sort of complex explanation could rank in science that being raised to the position of a "theory."

 

To say "only a theory" makes you either look disingenuous or ignorant, and I know you are not ignorant. It is like saying gravity is "only a theory."

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It has massive support of scientific evidence. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories and are not supported my scientic evidence and the scientific method.

 

If we are going to teach "science" as a matter of opinion it is unworthy of the name.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Hidden
He has been posting things online for MANY years and in the past I have read his articles online regarding vaccinations. I have no desire to spend HOURS reading through tons of information and comments right now.

So sorry I missed the EXACT comments you posted. If you wanted to make a case based on particular comments and expect people to know EXACTLY what you were talking about it would have made more sense for you to just come out and say what the comments were instead of expecting others to take the time to read through many, many pages of material.

I agree that saying to someone "since thinking is not one of your strong points...." is rude. Please supply a link to that comment.

 

I am NOT going to get online and spend hours looking for it, as he has spent YEARS posting things online.

 

I don't think you are comprehending the original poster's question; you missed the gist of her original post. She's NOT asking for others to comment on Dr Wile's arrogance, she merely says it bothers her and would like suggestions for other texts. Thus, there's no reason to sound,imo, so ticked off. She's not asking you to dig thru his posts!

Share this post


Link to post

I see this thread got de railed a bit, but I wanted to put in a plug for the science series (Holt) that Saxon has put together. My ds is using Physical Science and I'm appreciating the schedule and teacher's helps that Saxon has provided. HTH.

 

Saxon Homeschool Science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Wile says:

 

Because people in California are refusing the whooping cough vaccine in large numbers, whooping cough is rearing its ugly head there. Children are needlessly becoming sick and dying, and we have the misinformation spread by anti-vaccine people to thank for it.

 

He is speaking the truth. I don't respect the anti-scientific stance of his biology books, but on this point Wile is spot-on.

 

Bill

:iagree: Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see this thread got de railed a bit, but I wanted to put in a plug for the science series (Holt) that Saxon has put together. My ds is using Physical Science and I'm appreciating the schedule and teacher's helps that Saxon has provided. HTH.

 

Saxon Homeschool Science

 

Thanks for this info! I will check into it. I am so thankful for all the help. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is those kinds of Mellville quotes that kept me going when I wanted to put Moby Dick down. Sorry -- off topic, but I could resist commenting on your signature quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is those kinds of Mellville quotes that kept me going when I wanted to put Moby Dick down. Sorry -- off topic, but I could resist commenting on your signature quote.

 

Ah, yes! Mr Melville could really turn a phrase.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Actually, Miss Sherry, you totally have missed the ENTIRE reason I started the post. I said from the very beginning it was because I was saddened by his rudeness and looking for SUGGESTIONS FOR SCIENCE texts. Sorry you tried to make it as if I am on a personal vendetta against him.

 

AND I never asked anyone to read his comments. I simply said I was disappointed in some of them. THEN I asked for people to suggest a text to me.

 

I am sorry that you misread what my beginning questions was about.

I did ask you specifically what you were referring to, which you didn't answer until several posts later. But by then you were quite irritated. And yes, you did say to me "if you will take the time to read ...." So you were expecting me to search through the blogs and FIND exactly what you were talking about.

Sorry I offended you. I was only trying to find out more specifically what the exact comments were, not just the general topic. A person could do an awful lot of reading, especially if you only stick to textbooks or articles, and totally miss the rude comments on the blogs, especially if you are like me and do not care to read much at all of the comments on the blogs. As soon as I saw some of the grumpy comments by those posting to him I lost interest and just stopped reading the blogs. :tongue_smilie:

 

I do think that threads like this that attack a persons character should be avoided. Just like anyone else he has his strong traits - and as you've pointed out - some flaws too. I don't find that too surprising.

The part about him comparing himself to Christ, now that's really odd. But I also don't see a link to that and don't want to look for it

I wasn't trying to attack you. I was trying to clarify exactly what the comments were and where they were. You never did provide links to the exact comments or respond to my questions so I think it's unfair for you to "scold" me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Hidden
I don't think you are comprehending the original poster's question; you missed the gist of her original post. She's NOT asking for others to comment on Dr Wile's arrogance, she merely says it bothers her and would like suggestions for other texts. Thus, there's no reason to sound,imo, so ticked off. She's not asking you to dig thru his posts!

If someone is going to call a person arrogant on a public forum where a lot of people are aware of who they are talking about and use their products it is unreasonable to think no one is going to ask for clarification of the details. I did not ask for anything unreasonable and she was the one ticked off that I would dare to bother her with questions about her accusations. If someone doesn't want what they said to be noticed and wondered about it doesn't belong on a public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, there are some who do believe that Eden was located in relation to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, some use the fossil river through Saudi Arabia and the Red Sea, if this is correct it would be somewhere around Lebanon. Others who believe in the Bible as a historical record use satellite imaging of the fossil river in Saudi Arabia and another coming in from the east, that would actually put it underneath the Persian Gulf. This would mean that the rivers flowed into Eden, not from it. But they also believe that the great flood wasn't worldwide but the result of the "little ice age". There are so many different views on this I think it would be hard to put them all in a one book. :)

 

I can't use any of his books and find it interesting that he has now left Apologia. I find his blog contradictory.

Thanks for your post. Interesting about the beliefs regarding Eden and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. You said "I think it would be hard to put them all in a one book." That is true. Only so much can be printed in any one textbook.

I see you said you can't use the Apologia books. I haven't decided what to use next year.

Do you mind saying what you use ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't use any of his books and find it interesting that he has now left Apologia. I find his blog contradictory.

 

Did I miss something in this long thread? Who left Apologia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
I did ask you specifically what you were referring to, which you didn't answer until several posts later. But by then you were quite irritated. And yes, you did say to me "if you will take the time to read ...." So you were expecting me to search through the blogs and FIND exactly what you were talking about.

Sorry I offended you. I was only trying to find out more specifically what the exact comments were, not just the general topic. A person could do an awful lot of reading, especially if you only stick to textbooks or articles, and totally miss the rude comments on the blogs, especially if you are like me and do not care to read much at all of the comments on the blogs. As soon as I saw some of the grumpy comments by those posting to him I lost interest and just stopped reading the blogs. :tongue_smilie:

 

I do think that threads like this that attack a persons character should be avoided. Just like anyone else he has his strong traits - and as you've pointed out - some flaws too. I don't find that too surprising.

The part about him comparing himself to Christ, now that's really odd. But I also don't see a link to that and don't want to look for it

I wasn't trying to attack you. I was trying to clarify exactly what the comments were and where they were. You never did provide links to the exact comments or respond to my questions so I think it's unfair for you to "scold" me now.

 

I don't irritate easily, so I am not offended or upset in the least. :)

I certainly will be happy to direct you to the comments, as I said, if you will tell me how to link directly to a comment.

 

And, no, I did not expect you or anyone to look them up. Again, I was merely expressing MY displeasure in my very first post on this topic. I believ you asked me what comments specifically. That is why I said you could read the comments. It wasn't my intention to point out all his comments.

I, and others, have repeatedly said you missed what my whole post was about. I think you will find many threads on this site where people voice off a complaint about a program they are using they decide they don't like. For some reason those who do like it get offended.

 

We all need to agree to disagree. I am not mad, offended, or any such thing. Actually, it sounds as if you are getting irritated. I am not quite sure why you keep posting about this. I am glad you like Apologia and Wile. I would not try to get you to dislike him. I like many curricula that others do not. If I like something, I will not be swayed to dislike it. Stick with what you like and ignore the critics. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Hidden
If someone is going to call a person arrogant on a public forum where a lot of people are aware of who they are talking about and use their products it is unreasonable to think no one is going to ask for clarification of the details. I did not ask for anything unreasonable and she was the one ticked off that I would dare to bother her with questions about her accusations. If someone doesn't want what they said to be noticed and wondered about it doesn't belong on a public forum.

 

If you re-read my first post- I do not believe it sounds very rude. I said what I feel- not what is true- we all have our own opinions. I think if I said this about the author of some text you didn't know, you would not think it so bad. You seem to be taking it personally. Again, I feel like defending a text or program that I Love too. I understand that desire. But please don't get offended. This was just my voicing my own feeling and trying to get some advice on a good science program.

 

Again, I am not bothered you "would dare" to bother me with questions. And they are not accusations. As I said, they were simply MY opinion.

 

Also, I never said I didn't want what I said to be noticed. Not sure what you mean by that??

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the many science replies. I won't be commenting anymore, but will check back after a time to see if there are any more science suggestions.

 

Thanks for your help everyone. I can always get such great advice from you all. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part about him comparing himself to Christ, now that's really odd. But I also don't see a link to that and don't want to look for it

 

since I'm not the original poster... and I don't have a dog in this fight, as they say.

 

I don't see a way to link directly to the comments section only on his blog.

So, I understand why Denise can't do that.

I do not feel comfortable playing copy and paste for the whole thing either. the comparing to Christ comments came in the comments section that he posted on Oct 4 at 3pm.

 

that's only for those trying to find it, and go read it for themselves.

 

if you don't want to read it and are just curious...

in those comments, he says to our Denise, that Jesus didn't care about being rude when cleansing the temple or dealing with Pharisees.

That implies but doesn't say that it's ok for him to be rude too.

He said "When the issue is important, the facts need to be asserted strongly"

 

uh, ok. nice logic jump. but whatever. I think he is saying he knows he is rude and claims rudeness is ok if the issue is important. whatever.

 

yes, there are clearly times in his responses that he sounds like he needs to step away from the computer, go get some teA, and then, go read 1 Cor. 13 before responding to comments on his blog. ;) kwim?

 

 

Denise, I hope you find a science program that works for your needs.

 

I like his textbooks; my kid does too; We use them as ways to debate issues in the few places where he goes there in the text. But then again, using controversial books is one fun part of our style of classical education. But like you, I wish I hadn't read his blog.

 

well.... I should go teach now. :)

 

-crystal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...