Orthodoxy and Progressivism: America's Battle over Education and a Silent Majority

There are many polarizing debates over the quality and content of the curriculum taught in Public Schools and Universities, typically there are two clearly predictable groups that emerge and square off for battle, the conservative orthodoxy and the secular or liberal progressives. As each side vigorously defends the extremes of their positions, they have apparently and unwittingly created a silent majority that may also wish to be heard.

A recognized educational policy maker acknowledges a sampling of some contemporary issues of debate in the educational policy arena:

For American public schools, the interplay between public policy has been rather volatile, thanks to both state and federal constitutions mandating an ever shifting degree of separation of church and state, yet permitting free religious expression. Some of the most intense political disputes in the past 40 years have involved educational issues such as the teaching of evolution or intelligent design within public schools, publically funded vouchers for attendance at religious institutions, state-sanctioned prayer within public schools, and the rise of sexuality education. (Lugg, 2004, p. Abstract)

Given the many battlefields that exist in America’s Culture War on public education, the main focus will be on the contemporary battlefront in the debate to include Intelligent Design in the public schools’ science curriculum. From the vast amounts of information that exists on this topic alone, it is important to define ID, identify the polar opponents, and understand a brief view of their core issues.

Intelligent Design is a new and developing theory that states that the origin and complexities of life can be attributed only to the action of a supernatural intelligence. This theory claims that the origin of life cannot be ascribed to natural causes or mechanical mechanisms, such as those described by evolutionary science (Johnson, Spring 2006, p. 222). It does not reject evolution as a means of change over time, or common ancestry, however it does challenge the idea that life arose by undirected processes of natural selection (Campbell, 2005).

For the purpose of identification and in keeping with Orthodox vs. Progressive perspective (Hunter, 1991), “Team Orthodox”, or proponents, will be representative of the group that is in support of ID in the Public Science Curriculum, since their main drivers are basically of the conservative persuasion. While “Team Progressive”, or opponents, is to be represented by those who do not generally ascribe to the notion that ID is a valid science and is led primarily by academia’s elite secular humanists.

The constant media blasts of white noise through television, radio, movies, the web, books, magazines, newspapers, etc., appears to keep the typical layperson uninformed of the key issues and stakes of the culture war and its many battlefronts. The notion of the layperson understanding what the issues of the day are with cleverly crafted part-truth and sensational devices by the media is absurd. From the political spin we receive for the incomprehensible actions of our leaders to self-proclaimed “No Spin Zones” that offers up scoops of opinion(s) and rhetoric only to support its own cause, all the while leaving the core issues unchecked.

The silent majority, formed by default of the polarized left and right sides, is the mass of humanity that have not claimed a side. Basically, those caught in the middle, which also have a stake in the outcome of the ID debate but have not trumpeted an opinion. Interestingly enough, our journalistic media demonstrates a tendency to cover their stories from a two-sided perspective, in an effort to show both sides of a story. As a result, those that may fall somewhere between the polar extremes of the arguments, tend to not be represented or heard by the policy makers.

Ironically, it almost seems as though those academic elites of the left would impose that those, outside of their circles, are ignorant and deserve whatever they (the educated) decides is best, thus demonstrating a perceived academic arrogance that acts as a source of antagonism in today’s social policy making and debates. Just as those on the right appear to further polarize their position by sending sentences of judgment to those that disagree with their beliefs rather than extend an empathetic understanding to their counterpart’s sound arguments.

While each side of the cultural divide between the Conservatives and the Progressives have their justifiable positions and strong base arguments, surely the model of wisdom from life’s lessons and history could serve as a basic moral compass. Just as the Orthodox position, as seen in the early Protestant domination, had control over educational policy and employed divisive tactics to