Sci & Educ (2015) 24:115–123

DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9631-4

Gregor Mendel: Creationist Hero

Ronald L. Numbers

Published online: 20 July 2013

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In histories of twentieth-century Darwinism few developments loom larger

than the turn-of-the-century rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s genetic research and the later
application of Mendelian principles in constructing so-called Neo-Darwinism. Virtually
unknown is the equally enthusiastic embrace of Mendel by antievolutionists, who as early
as 1917 adopted the Austrian monk as their most celebrated scientific hero, a status he
continues to hold down to the present day.

It is a commonplace in histories of evolution that Gregor Mendel’s experiments with

garden peas solved Charles Darwin’s biggest problem: heredity. As one historian of
biology succinctly put it, ‘‘Mendel Made Darwinism’’ (Sapp 2003, p. 126). Less well
known is the longstanding embrace of Mendel by antievolutionists for supposedly falsi-
fying Darwin’s theory of random variations and natural selection. This is the story.1

1 Back to Creationism

The creationists’ love affair with Mendel began a little over a decade and a half after the
rediscovery of the Austrian monk’s research, near the beginning of the antievolution
crusade in the United States. As far as I can determine, the first extended use of Mendel in
the creationist cause came from George McCready Price, the scientifically self-educated,

1
Three decades ago Bowler (1983) drew attention to the fact that it took biologists decades to see that
Mendelian genetics actually complemented Darwinism; in the meantime they viewed Mendelism ‘‘as yet
another alternative to Darwinism’’ (pp. 5, 16). However, Bowler erred in not qualifying his conclusion that
‘‘distrust of Darwinian materialism led the critics toward Lamarckism, not creationism’’ (p. 226). As we
shall see, for some critics it did indeed lead to creationism (see also Bowler 1989, pp. 116–119).

R. L. Numbers (&)
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
e-mail: rnumbers@wisc.edu

123
116 R. L. Numbers

Canadian-born school teacher whose screeds against evolution were increasingly attracting
the attention of Christian fundamentalists.2 In fact, by the mid-1920s the editor of Science
was able to refer to him as ‘‘the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists’’ (Price
1926). In Q.E.D.; or, New Light on the Doctrine of Creation (1917), apparently his first
discussion of Mendel, Price devoted an entire chapter to ‘‘Mendelism and the Origin of
Species’’ (pp. 78–98). ‘‘Mendelism, as it is now called, has steadily gained ground [since its
rediscovery in 1900], until at the present time it can be said to be the dominating conception
among biologists the world over regarding the problems of heredity’’ (84), he reported.
‘‘Innumerable experiments which have since been made with other pairs of characters have
demonstrated that this same mathematical proportion holds good throughout the whole
world of plants and animals; and hence this astonishing result is now called Mendel’s Law,
and is regarded as the most important discovery in biology in several generations’’ (p. 85).
Price lauded the experiments of Thomas Hunt Morgan at Columbia University on the
Drosophila ampelophila or wild fruit fly, which demonstrated that every variation or
mutation observed ‘‘was brought about not gradually, but at a single step.’’ He congrat-
ulated Morgan for sarcastically ‘‘contrasting these demonstrated laboratory facts with the
armchair theories that have so long and so harmfully dominated biological studies,’’
referring, of course, to Darwinism (pp. 86–87). ‘‘Mutations,’’ Price explained,
can be made according to Mendel’s Law; but when we have made them once we can always be sure
of producing the very same mutants again in the very same way, as surely as we produce a definite
chemical compound; and when we have made it we can always resolve it at will back into its original
form, just as we can a chemical compound’’ (pp. 90–91).
Only a year earlier Morgan had delivered a series of lectures at Princeton University titled
‘‘A Critique of the Theory of Evolution,’’ in which America’s pioneering geneticist had
contrasted Mendelism evolution with Darwin’s version. The former, he said, provided:
a somewhat different picture of the process of evolution from the old idea of a ferocious struggle
between the individuals of a species with the survival of the fittest and the annihilation of the less fit.
Evolution assumes a more peaceful aspect. New and advantageous characters survive by incorpo-
rating themselves into the race, improving it and opening to it new opportunities. In other words, the
emphasis may be placed less on the competition between the individuals of a species (because the
destruction of the less fit does not in itself lead to anything that is new) than on the appearance of new
characters and modifications of old characters that become incorporated in the species, for on these
depends the evolution of the race.
Natural selection, he concluded, may eliminate mutations unfit to survive, but it could not
account for ‘‘the causes of the mutations that give rise to new characters’’—adding,
significantly, that ‘‘we have no reason for supposing that they are due to other than natural
processes’’ (Morgan 1916, pp. 87–88, 193–194; see also Price 1917, pp. 86–87, and Price
1925, pp. 14–15).3
Price especially prized statements by the British geneticist William Bateson. Indeed, it
was probably Bateson’s controversial presidential address to the British Association for the
Advancement of Science in Melbourne, Australia, in 1914 that first triggered Price’s
interest in Mendelism.4 As Bateson himself summarized his message, his ‘‘chief conclu-
sion… was the negative one, that, though we must hold to our faith in the evolution of

2
On Price’s life and work, see Numbers (Numbers 2006, pp. 88–160).
3
Curiously, Morgan and his collaborators had said nothing about Darwin, evolution, or natural selection in
The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, published the year before (Morgan et al. 1915).
4
In his earlier Mendel’s Principles of Heredity Bateson had said little about the implications of Mendelism
for Darwinism (Bateson 1909, p. 284).

123
Gregor Mendel: Creationist Hero 117

species, there is little evidence as to how it has come about, and no clear proof that the
process is continuing in any considerable degree at the present time’’ (Bateson 1914,
p. 319). ‘‘Here again,’’ declared Price,
we find the record of Creation confirmed; for the failure of the thousands of modern investigators to
originate genuine new species proves that in this respect also Creation is not now going on. And all
the analogies from the origin of matter, of energy, of life, and from the laws of the reproduction of
cells, indicate that we have at last found rock bottom truth regarding the vexed question of the origin
of species. So far as science can observe and record, each living thing on earth, in air, in water,
reproduces ‘‘after its kind’’ (Price 1917, p. 96).
Price also quoted a quip by the Berkeley zoologist Samuel C. Holmes, who, writing in
Science, had acknowledged Bateson for illustrating ‘‘the bankruptcy of present evolution-
ary theory’’ (Price 1917, p. 96).
Convinced by such scientific testimony that ‘‘the general results taught us by Mendelism
are now established beyond controversy,’’ Price credited Mendelism with undermining the
‘‘supposed foundation for biological evolution, by showing that small variations cannot be
accumulated into large differences equal in value to a unit character or a new species.’’ If
Darwinism had not already generated so much ‘‘intellectual momentum,’’ Price speculated
that ‘‘it could be only a very short time now before the elaborate treatises attempting to
orientate with it all the facts of religion and history would have to be consigned to the
shelves labeled, ‘Of Historic Interest’’’ (Price 1917, pp. 96–97).
Within a year or two other prominent scientists were seconding Morgan’s and Bateson’s
view on the negative consequences of Mendelism for Darwinism. Two particularly
attracted Price’s attention: Johannes P. Lotzy and Maurice Caullery. Lotsy, a Dutch bot-
anist who had spent time in the 1890s at the Johns Hopkins University, published a
monograph in the Netherlands on Evolution by Means of Hybridization (1916). In it he
provocatively declared: ‘‘Phylogeny e.g. reconstruction of what has happened in the past,
[is] no science but a product of phantastic speculations which can be held but little in
check by the geological record, on account of the incompleteness of the latter’’ Lotzy 1916,
p. 140; italics in original). That same year the Sorbonne’s Caullery, while serving as an
exchange professor at Harvard University, gave a widely circulated lecture on ‘‘The
Present State of the Problem of Evolution.’’ Citing Bateson and Lotzy as allies, the French
zoologist said that with respect to evolution, ‘‘the data of Mendelism embarrass us… very
considerably.’’ All they show us, he continued,
is the conservation of existing properties… we do not see in the facts emerging from the study of
Mendelism, how evolution, in the sense that morphology suggests, can have come about. And it
comes to pass that some of the biologists of greatest authority in the study of Mendelian heredity are
led, with regard to evolution, either to more or less complete agnosticism, or to the expression of
ideas quite opposed to those of the preceding generation; ideas which would almost take us back to
creationism (Caullery 1916; emphasis added).
Price could scarcely have phrased it better.
Even Darwin’s partisans began taking note of the turn against Darwinism. In 1917, for
example, William K. Gregory, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, addressed the negative influence of Bateson’s Australian address and Morgan’s
Princeton lectures on younger scientists:
Such is the skepticism which sometimes results from modern studies in genetics that I have known
graduate students who seriously doubted the reality and value of the principle of progressive and
retrogressive adaptation, on the ground that, as natural selection and the inheritance of ‘acquired’
characters had both been disproved, that was no conceivable means whereby adaptation could be
brought about!

123
118 R. L. Numbers

Such skepticism, Gregory thought, could be cured by taking a close look at the
paleontological evidence for evolution; however, a methodological problem raised by
Bateson and taken up by ‘‘certain university students’’—‘‘that phylogenetic ‘speculations’
are unverifiable, because ‘control experiments’ are not possible’’—could not so easily be
treated (Gregory 1917). To another observer it seemed that ‘‘a new generation has grown
up that knows not Darwin’’ (Scott 1921, p. 154).
In 1921 Price had the good fortune to sit in the audience as Bateson confessed to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in Toronto that, as a result of ‘‘the
Mendelian clue,’’ the origin of species remained a mystery: ‘‘We cannot see how the
differentiation into species came about. Variation of many kinds, often considerable, we
daily witness, but no origin of species.’’ Fearful that obscurantists and other ‘‘enemies of
science’’ would take advantage of such a public confession, Bateson took the precaution of
proclaiming ‘‘in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution is unshaken’’
(W. Bateson 1922a; see also W. Bateson 1922b).
Bateson’s fears proved well founded. The very day after his address, as reported in
Science, the Toronto Globe ran the following headline in large type:
Bateson Holds That Former Beliefs Must be Abandoned. Theory of Darwin Still Remains Unproved
and Missing Link Between Monkey and Man Has Not Yet Been Discovered by Science. Claims
Science Has Outgrown Theory of Origin of Species.’’ In intermediate type it announced: ‘‘Distin-
guished Biologist from Britain Delivers Outstanding Address on Failure of Science to Support
Theory That Man Arrived on Earth Through Process of Natural Selection and Evolution of Species.
Have Traced Man Far Back but Still He Remains Man,’’ and, in smaller type: The missing link is still
missing, and the Darwinian theory of the origin of species is not proved (quoted in Osborn 1922).
Twenty-four hours after describing Bateson’s address as ‘‘epoch-making,’’ the newspaper
added fuel to the controversy by publishing a follow-up letter titled ‘‘The Collapse of
Darwinism.’’ In it the author gave his assessment of the recent event:
To an audience rarely paralleled in Canada for scientific eminence and influence, the famous Pro-
fessor Bateson, with amazing frankness, removed one by one the props that have been considered the
very pillars of Darwinism… and ruthlessly tore down one by one the once fondly believed links in
the great chain of Darwinian evolution (quoted in Osborn 1922).

Reprinting this worrisome coverage of Bateson’s lecture, the distinguished paleontol-

ogist Henry Fairfield Osborn expressed anger with the outspoken British geneticist, noting
that ‘‘Bateson’s attitude towards Darwinism has been patronizing ever since he began his
evolutionary studies.’’ In this instance, Osborn added, the newspapers were not to blame
for distorting science. Their coverage was ‘‘called forth by the fact that many of the
statements in Bateson’s address… are inaccurate and misleading, especially those relating
to the origin of species, natural selection, and infertility between species’’ (Osborn 1922).
Even Morgan, dubbed by Julian Huxley the ‘‘fountain-head of neo-Mendelism,’’ expressed
concern about Bateson’s sweeping claims (Morgan 1923; Huxley 1924, p. 518). Perhaps it
should be noted that Bateson, an avowed atheist, had no religious axe to grind; although he
used to read the Bible to his children at breakfast—lest they ‘‘grow up to be empty-headed
atheists (Bateson 1970).
Convinced that he had just heard ‘‘the swan song of Darwinism’’ in Toronto, Price, just
as Bateson had feared, immediately put what he had heard to apologetical use (Numbers
2006, p. 100). In The Phantom of Organic Evolution (1924), his most extensive critique of
the biological arguments for evolution, Price continued his praise of Mendelism for the
damage it did to Darwinism. Dismissing ‘‘the obscurantist or reactionary group among
biological scientists’’ who still clung to Darwinian natural selection as ‘‘standpatters,’’
Price lauded the ‘‘real progressives’’ such as Bateson, Morgan, Lotsy, and Scott, ‘‘men

123
Gregor Mendel: Creationist Hero 119

who, though still retaining a general faith in the doctrine of organic development somehow,
very clearly and very positively tell us that they do not know how any such progressive
development among animals and plants could possibly have come about.’’ The develop-
ment of Mendelian genetics, which seemingly allowed for only ‘‘definite and predictable’’
variations, had so eroded confidence in the efficacy of natural selection, Price felt he
needed only to write the ‘‘funeral oration’’ for Darwinism: ‘‘A dead lion needs no bullets’’
(Price 1924, pp. 15, 19–20, 21–42).
Price readily found grist from the contemporary scientific literature to support his
antievolutionary interpretation of Mendelism. To depict what he saw as the growing dis-
illusionment with Mendelian support for evolution, he quoted, for example, Ernest W.
MacBride, a Lamarckian zoologist at Imperial College London writing in Science Progress
in 1922:
I well remember the enthusiasm with which the Mendelian theory was received, when it was
introduced to the scientific world in the early years of this century. We thought that at last the key to
evolution had been discovered. As a leading Mendelian put it, whilst the rest of us had been held up
by an apparently impenetrable hedge, namely, the difficulty of explaining the origin of variation,
Mendel had, unnoticed, cut a way through. But, as our knowledge of the facts grew, the difficulty of
using Mendelian phenomena to explain evolution, became apparent, and this early hope sickened and
died. The way which Mendel cut was seen to lead into a cul-de-sac. (Price 1924, p. 30).
This metaphor, a cul-de-sac, became a favorite of Price’s (1924, p. 41; see also Price
1925a, p. 28).
In a presidential address to the botanical section of the British Association in 1921 the
esteemed British botanist D. H. Scott described Mendel’s revolutionary impact. ‘‘Not only
is the ‘omnipotence of natural selection’ gravely impugned,’’ he declared, ‘‘but also var-
iation itself, the foundation on which the Darwinian theory seemed to rest so securely, is
now in question.’’ Quoting Lotsy extensively about the limited knowledge of variation,
Scott concluded: ‘‘the Darwinian period is past’’ (Scott 1921, pp. 153–154; see also Scott
1924, pp. 17–18). Price, a devout Seventh-day Adventist, quickly shared this good news
with his fellow believers in the denomination’s weekly paper, The Advent Review and
Sabbath Herald, the first of several mentions of Mendel that appeared in its pages (Price
1922a, see also Price 1922b).5
Price even dredged up a passage from the late Alfred Russel Wallace’s Letters and
Reminiscences explaining why evolution gained no support from Mendel’s theory:
On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution, I have come to a very definite conclusion. That is,
that it has no relations whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic
to such evolution… the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted
without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, they can never become adapted to
every-varying conditions (Price 1924, p. 33; see also Marchant 1916, p. 340).

Despite Price’s immense popularity among Christian fundamentalists, the mainstream

scientific community paid him little attention. One of few exceptions was William M.
Goldsmith, an Indiana University-trained biologist on the faculty of the Methodist
Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas, who was anything but sympathetic (Goldsmith
1924, p. 68).

5
In the years between Price (1918) and 1931 the Seventh-day Adventist weekly Signs of the Times
published an average of one article a year, often by Price, invoking Mendel as the destroyer of Darwinism.

123
120 R. L. Numbers

2 Creationist Genetics

The most enthusiastic—and knowledgeable—antievolutionist who promoted Mendelism

as the antidote to Darwinism was Byron C. Nelson, a minister from Wisconsin in the arch-
conservative Norwegian Lutheran Church of America who embraced Price’s flood geology
after reading Price’s New Geology in Price (1923). As a master’s student at Princeton
Theological Seminary in the mid-1920s, Nelson wrote his thesis on the scientific and
biblical meaning of the Genesis ‘‘kinds,’’ concluding that both Mendel and Moses taught
the fixity of species. A revised version of this thesis appeared in 1927 as his first book:
‘‘After Its Kind’’: The First and Last Word on Evolution (Numbers 2006, p. 125; Nelson
1995). The subtitle nicely captured Nelson’s argument. As he explained,
The First Word on Evolution is the decree of the Creator at the time the different ‘‘kinds’’ or species
were created. ‘‘The Last Word on Evolution’’ is the statements of the laws of heredity brought to light
by the recent discoveries of the Austrian Monk, Gregor Mendel. No believer in special creation can
hold too high the hereditary doctrines of Mendelism.
In a chapter devoted to Mendel’s laws Nelson assured readers that Mendelian heredity had
gone ‘‘far to destroy the faith of biologists in evolution itself.’’ To illustrate ‘‘the blow that
the evolution idea [had] received from the discovery of Mendel’s laws,’’ he followed Price
in citing such scientific authorities as Bateson (‘‘the world’s greatest student of and
authority on Mendelism’’), McBride, Scott, and Caullery. The inescapable conclusion:
‘‘Mendel’s discovery has done great damage to the theory of evolution. Mendelism says
After Its Kind’’ (Nelson and Byron Nelson 1927, 11, 94–102, 116).
In the late 1920s, while pastoring a Danish Lutheran church in Perth Amboy, New
Jersey, Nelson renewed a friendship with an unrelated fellow Wisconsinite, Thurlow C.
Nelson (1890–1960), who had become head of the zoology department at nearby Rutgers
University. At first the professor urged his friend to stick to theology and leave science
alone, but a reading of ‘‘After Its Kind’’ convinced him that the preacher might benefit from
a greater exposure to the biological sciences. On the professor’s recommendation the
preacher enrolled in a genetics course at Rutgers University, taught by a professor reputed
to be ‘‘death’’ on creationists. Nelson not only passed the course but struck up a friendship
with the teacher, who invited him to take an advanced seminar in which, Nelson reported,
he ‘‘bred fruit flies by the thousands, attempting to bring about mutations by feeding them
arsenic.’’ For a period he became so enamored of science that he toyed with the idea of
giving up his ministerial career to teach biology. Instead, he returned to Wisconsin to study
geology at the state university in Madison and, soon thereafter, to minister to two small
churches in the Oconomowoc Lake region. In 1935 he joined with a small group of
scientifically inclined antievolutionists in founding the Religion and Science Association,
apparently the first antievolution organization in America aimed at resolving scientific and
hermeneutical problems rather than restricting the teaching of evolution. Nelson served as
vice president; Price, as chair of the board of directors (Numbers 2006, pp. 123–127, 297).
During the interwar years no one in the creationist camp discussed Mendel as exten-
sively as Price and Nelson, but many others briefly invoked the monk’s authority in their
continuing battle against evolution. In 1925 the Benedictine priest George Barry O’Toole
wrote one of the few creationist tracts, The Case against Evolution, brought out by a major
publishing house. In it O’Toole praised ‘‘the great Augustianian Abbot, Mendel,’’ who had
clipped ‘‘the wings of irresponsible speculation.’’ Quoting the supportive testimony of
Bateson, Morgan, and Caullery, he thanked Mendel for administering ‘‘the final coup de
grace to all the elaborate schemes of evolution that had preceded or followed its initial

123
Gregor Mendel: Creationist Hero 121

publication’’ (O’Toole 1925, pp. 3, 12, 24). Because the title page identified O’Toole as
professor of animal biology at Seton Hill College, a small Catholic school for women in
Pennsylvania, many readers understandably concluded that the author was a scientist. He
had, indeed, taken courses in biology, geology, and chemistry at Columbia University
during one winter and a couple of summers, but his graduate degrees, including a Ph.D.
and an S.T.D., were all from the Urban University (of the Propaganda) in Rome, where he
had studied from 1906 to 1912. Except for a couple of years teaching biology at Seton Hill,
he devoted his life primarily to theology, philosophy, and academic administration
(Numbers 2006, pp. 70–71).6
Additional examples of Mendel’s popularity among creationists abound. The leader of
the antievolutionists in the early 1920s, William Jennings Bryan, invoked Bateson’s dis-
cussion of Mendelism in his notorious Toronto address to document ‘‘how every effort to
discover the origin of species has failed’’ (Bryan 1922). William Bell Riley, the Baptist
pastor who founded the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association and authored a
number of antievolution pamphlets, praised Mendelism for ‘‘forcing science to accept the
creative theory of Genesis—‘to each seed it is given to bring forth after its kind’’’ (Riley
n.d., p. 14; see also Riley c. 1932, pp. 14–15, and Trollinger 1995). The Canadian surgeon
Arthur I. Brown, hailed by his followers as the ‘‘greatest scientist in all the world,’’
similarly celebrated Mendel and his antievolution laws (Brown 1922, p. 19; Brown n.d.,
p. 9; Numbers 1995, p. ix). In 1929 in one of the first books to use the term ‘‘creationism’’
in its title Harold W. Clark, a former student of Price’s who would soon go on to earn a
master’s degree in biology at the University of California, published Back to Creationism.
Drawing from Bateson and Caullery, the source of his title, Clark portrayed Mendelism as
a serious obstacle to Darwinism. Like Price and Nelson, Clark in the 1930s served on the
board of the Religion and Science Association (Clark 1929, pp. 101, 106, 110; Numbers
2006, pp. 242–249; see also Clark 1923a, b).
Not surprisingly, given the long-standing interest in Mendel, several of the leading
creationists in the middle of the twentieth century chose careers as geneticists. Shortly after
the evangelical American Scientific Affiliation formed in 1941 members began preparing
an edited volume on Modern Science and Christian Faith (1948). For the essay on biology
the organizers selected two creationist geneticists, William J. Tinkle and Walter E.
Lammerts. Tinkle, also a minister in the Church of the Brethren, had earned a doctorate
from Ohio State University and was teaching at Taylor University in Indiana; Lammerts
had obtained his from the University of California in Berkeley and had taught at the Los
Angeles campus before moving to a position in industry (Numbers 2006, pp. 240–249).
Although they never mentioned Mendel in their defense of creationism, they devoted
several section to supporting evidence from genetics (Tinkle and Lammerts 1948,
pp. 88–101). In 1963 Lammerts and Tinkle broke with the increasingly liberal American
Scientific Affiliation to start the strictly creationist Creation Research Society. The ten
founders included three members with earned doctorates in genetics: Lammerts, Tinkle,
and John W. Klotz, who had received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh and was,
like Lammerts, a members of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church (Numbers 2006,
pp. 216–217).
Mendel’s reputation as a creationist hero continued into the late twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries. In the 1990s Lane P. Lester, a Purdue-trained geneticist then
teaching at Liberty University, published a widely circulated essay titled ‘‘Genetics:
Enemy of Evolution’’ (Lester 1995; see also 1998). Acts & Facts, published by the Institute

6
For an earlier Catholic opinion, see Windle (1911).

123
122 R. L. Numbers

for Creation Research, in 2008 celebrated Mendel as ‘‘Man of Science, Man of God’’ (Dao
2008). Even the leading Islamic creationist, Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar), praised the
Austrian monk for showing ‘‘that species remain unchanged’’ and creating ‘‘a serious dead-
end for Darwin’s theory’’ (Yahya 2008, pp. 18–19). Thus Gregor Mendel the creationist
hero lived on, demonstrating once again the power of scientific ideas to be used for even
contradictory purposes.

References

Bateson, W. (1909). Mendel’s principles of heredity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bateson, W. (1914). Address of the President of the British association for the Advancement of Science.
Science, 40, 319–333.
Bateson, W., (1922a). Evolutionary faith and modern doubts. Science, 55, 55–61. Also published in Nature
109, 553–556.
Bateson, W., (1922b). Mendelism. In The Encyclopædia Britannica, 12th Ed., 32 vols., 31, 911–913.
London: Encyclopædia Britannica Co.
Bateson, G. (1970). On empty-headedness among biologists and state boards of education. BioScience, 20,
819.
Bowler, P. J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around
1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The emergence of hereditarian concepts in modern science
and society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brown, A. I. (n.d.). Was Darwin Right? Glendale, CA: Glendale News.
Brown, A. I., (1922). Evolution and the Bible. Vancouver, BC: Arcade Printers.
Bryan, W. J. (1922). God and evolution. New York Times (26 February): 84. Reprinted in ‘‘William
Jennings Bryan on Evolution’’. Science, 55, 242–243.
Caullery, M., (1916). The Present State of the Problem of Evolution. Science 43, 547–559. Reprinted in
Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for 1916, pp. 321–335.
Clark, H. W. (1923a). Heredity blasts evolution. Signs of the Times 50 (Sept. 4): 3, 6.
Clark, H. W. (1923b). The laws of heredity leave no place for evolution. Signs of the Times 50 (Sept. 11):
13–14.
Clark, H. W. (1929). Back to creationism. Angwin: Pacific Union College Press.
Dao, C. (2008). Man of science, man of god: Gregor Johann Mendel. Acts & Facts, 37(October), 8.
Goldsmith, W. M. (1924). Evolution or Christianity, God or Darwin? with chapters by Henry Fairfield
Osborn. St. Louis: Anderson Press.
Gregory, W. K. (1917). Genetics versus paleontology. American Naturalist, 51, 622–635.
Huxley, J. S. (1924). Review of The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, by T. H. Morgan and Others.
Nature, 113, 518–520.
Lester, L. P., (1995). Genetics: Enemy of Evolution. Creation Research Society Quarterly 31, No. 4.
Available at www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html. Accessed 2-4-2013.
Lester, L. P. (1998). Genetics: No friend of evolution. Creation, 20(March), 20–22.
Lotzy, J. P. (1916). Evolution by means of hybridization. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Marchant, J. (Ed.). (1916). Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and reminiscences. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Morgan, T. H. (1916). A critique of the theory of evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Morgan, T. H. (1923). The bearing of Mendelism on the origin of species. Scientific Monthly, 16, 237–247.
Morgan, T. H., et al. (1915). The mechanism of Mendelian heredity. New York: Henry Holt.
Nelson, B. C. (1927). After its kind: The first and last word on evolution. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House.
Nelson, P. (1995). The creationist writings of Byron C. Nelson. In R. L. Numbers (Ed.), Creationism in
twentieth-century America: A Ten-volume anthology of documents, 1903–1961 (Vol. 5). New York:
Garland Publishing.
Numbers, R. L. (1995). The antievolution works of Arthur I. Brown. In R. L. Numbers (Ed.), Creationism in
Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903–1961 (Vol. 3). New York:
Garland Publishing.

123
Gregor Mendel: Creationist Hero 123

Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent design (Expanded ed.).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
O’Toole, G. B. (1925). The case against evolution. New York: Macmillan.
Osborn, H. F. (1922). William Bateson on Darwinisn. Science, 55, 194–197.
Price, G. M., (1917). Q.E.D.; or New Light on the Doctrine of Creation.
Price, G. M. (1918). Ten revolutionary facts. Signs of the Times, 45 (July 9): 15.
Price, G. M., (1922a). Darwinism Bankrupt. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 99 (16 March): 3–4.
Price, G. M. (1922b). Why are problems ‘‘unsolved’’? Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 99 (23 March):
3–4.
Price, G. M. (1923). The new geology. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.
Price, G. M. (1924). The phantom of organic evolution. New York: Fleming H. Revell.
Price, G. M. (1925). The predicament of evolution. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association.
Price, G. M. (1926). Letter to the editor of science from the principal scientific authority of the funda-
mentalists. Science, 63, 259.
Riley, W. B. (n.d.). The Theory of Evolution—Does It Tend to Atheism? Minneapolis: L. W. Camp.
Riley, W. B. (1932). The theory of evolution tested by mathematics. Minneapolis: L. W. Camp.
Sapp, J. (2003). Genesis: The evolution of biology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, D. H. (1921). The present position of the theory of descent, in relation to the early history of plants.
Nature, 108, 153–159.
Scott, D. H. (1924). Extinct plants and problems of evolution. London: Macmillan.
Tinkle, W. J., & Lammerts, W. E. (1948). Biology and creation. In Members of the American Scientific
Affiliation (Ed.), Modern science and Christian faith, (pp. 75–107). Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press.
Trollinger, W. V. Jr. (1995). The Antievolution Pamphlets of William Bell Riley. In R. L. Numbers (Ed.),
Creationism in twentieth-century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (Vol.
4). New York: Garland Publishing.
Windle, B. (1911). Mendel, Mendelism. In The Catholic encyclopedia (Vol. 10, p. 182). New York: Robert
Appleton.
Yahya, H. (2008). Darwinism refuted. Istanbul: Global Publishing.

Author Biography

Ronald L. Numbers is Hilldale Professor Emeritus of the History of Science and Medicine at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, where he taught for nearly four decades. He has written or edited more than two
dozen books, including, most recently, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion
(2009), Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins (2010, with Denis Alexander), Science and
Religion around the World (2011, with John Hedley Brooke), and Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to
Science (2011, with Peter Harrison and Michael H. Shank). He is general editor, with David C. Lindberg, of
the eight-volume Cambridge History of Science (2003- .), as well as a past president the History of Science
Society, the American Society of Church History, and the International Union of History and Philosophy of
Science.

123