Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 349–370 | Cite as

The Politics of Anti-Creationism: The Committees of Correspondence

  • Hee-Joo Park


When the creationism issue rose to the surface in the late 1970s, an organized opposition to the creationist campaign came from an unexpected source. Local groups of rank and file evolution defenders, led by a retired biology teacher, organized a grassroots network of anti-creationism called the Committees of Correspondence. They basically approached the creationism issue as a political rather than a scientific problem and fought the battle on local fronts, where creationists were heavily engaged in legal campaigns to include their ideas in the public schools. Grassroots anti-creationism was, however, eventually replaced by a centralized national operation with an educational emphasis. In this paper, I will document the development of this neglected part of the creation-evolution controversy and discuss related issues, namely the politics of science that became clearly visible in the course of evolutionists' disputes over anti-creation strategies.

creationism anti-creationism evolutionary controversy politics of science Committee of Correspondence National Center for Science Education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



  1. Wayne Moyer Papers. Deposited at the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Frederick Edwords Papers. Deposited at the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  3. William V. Mayer Papers. Deposited at the National Center from Science Education, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  4. NCSE Papers. Deposited at the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Published material

  1. Anonymous, 1982. “Public Evenly Divided Between Evolutionists, Creationists.” The Gallup Poll media release.Google Scholar
  2. —— July/August 1985. “Annual Meeting of NCSE Board and of CCs, May 28, 1985, Los Angeles.” Creation/Evolution Newsletter 5: 3.Google Scholar
  3. —— July/August 1986. “A Position Statement: The Committees of Correspondence, What They Are and What They Do.” Creation/Evolution Newsletter 6: 4.Google Scholar
  4. —— September/October 1986. “Eugenie Scott Appointed NCSE Executive Director.” Creation/Evolution Newsletter 6: 2.Google Scholar
  5. —— January/February 1987. “AAAS Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Awards Go to Three for Promotion of Scientific Theory of Evolution.” Creation/Evolution Newsletter 7: 1.Google Scholar
  6. —— July 1988. “First ‘Back-To-Genesis’ Program a Resounding Success.” Acts and Facts. 17: 1.Google Scholar
  7. Blakeslee, Sandra. August 29 1999. “In Schools Across the Land, a Group Mounts Counterattacks on ‘Creation Science'.” New York Times.Google Scholar
  8. Eve, Raymond A. and Harrold, Francis B. 1991. The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Gerlovich, Jack A. et al. 1980. “Creationism in Iowa.” Science 208: 1208-1210.Google Scholar
  10. Gerlovich, Jack A. and Stanley L. Weinberg. 1983. “The Battle in Iowa: Qualified Success.” In Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution Controversy, ed. David B. Wilson, pp. 189-205. The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kitcher, Philip. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Larson, Edward J. 1985. Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Morris, Henry. 1972. “Evolution, Creation and the Public Schools.” Impact 1.Google Scholar
  14. —— 1984. A History of Modern Creationism. California: Master Book Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, John A. 1979. “Dealing With Controversy: A Challenge to the Universities.” The American Biology Teacher 41: 544-547.Google Scholar
  16. Moyer, Wayne A. 1980. “The Problem Won't Go Away.” BioScience 3: 147.Google Scholar
  17. Nelkin, Dorothy. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Numbers, Ronald. 1992. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  19. Pennock. Robert. 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ruse, Michael, ed. 1988. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/ Evolution Controversy. New York: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  21. Saladin, Kenneth. March/April 1982. “Opposing Creationism: Scientists Organize.” The Humanist 59.Google Scholar
  22. —— Summer 1982. “Creationists Lecture in Georgia-With Opposition.” Quarterly Newsletter of Georgia Committee of Correspondence 1: 2-3.Google Scholar
  23. —— 1983. “Sixty Years of Creationism in Georgia.” Society 20: 17-25.Google Scholar
  24. Saladin, Kenneth and Karl D. Fezer. March/April 1985. “The Committees of Correspondence: What They Are and What They Do.” Creation/Evolution Newsletter 5: 2-3.Google Scholar
  25. Toumey, Christopher P. 1994. God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Webb, George E. 1994. The Evolution Controversy in America. The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  27. Weinberg, Stanley. 1965. Biology: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  28. —— 1978. “Two views on the Textbook Watchers.” The American Biology Teacher 40: 541-545, 560.Google Scholar
  29. —— Fall 1980. “Reactions to Creationism in Iowa.” Creation/Evolution 2: 1-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hee-Joo Park
    • 1
  1. 1.History DepartmentHallym UniversitySouth Korea

Personalised recommendations