I don't think it was so much the bible versus science...Maybe not so much, though we do know there was quite a bit of animosity there. The scopes trial was only a generation earlier to Worlds in Collision's publication.
...as the whole question of uniformity and evolution and the kinds of time requirements such doctrines have, and what Velikovsky's theses did to the dating methods which such time estimates are based on.I remember that argument being proffered at the AAAS (in 1974?) hearing for Velikovsky. But the uniformitarian criterion for strict Darwinian evolution was already being questioned then, so the Establishment had other internal opponents to that over which they wasn't quite so much hostility. And the normal behavior that IV's thesis should have brought to bear would have been a healthy, albeit partisan and vigorous, questioning. Interdisciplinary synthesis wasn't exactly in its infancy, as it was getting quite a bit more attention outside America. Especially given the enormity of so many of IV's predictions (occurring in concert with so few misques), wouldn't the rational course have been for the best minds to inquire as to HOW he arrived at the predictions rather than attempt to leave the public (and presumably they as well) ignorant of the process?
Look, it just seemed and still seems odd. Maybe there's nothing to my conjecture -- that's why I'd like to know if anybody else tried to add beef to the idea. What raises my skepticism here was that the very nature of the opposition to I.V. Given several misrepresentations of his printed words and what appeared to be hostile ridicule by several renowned scientists, a rational review of what was going on specifically regarding Velikovsky, leaves one figuring there was some more visceral less cerebral undercurrent driving those theatrics.
Well, for what it's worth, that was my gut reaction to what I witnessed. I recall commenting: "the conduct of that inquiry was not comforting." As I still have heard (and I've heard quite a few) no sound and cohesive explanation for what transpired, my skepticism remains.