for medieval versions of Cfiristianity. 

 Washington Irving gave the fiat earth story 

 a good boost in his largely fictional history 

 of Columbus, published in 1828 — but his 

 version did not take hold. The legend grew 

 during the nineteenth century but did not 

 enter the crucial domains of schoolboy 

 pap or tour guide lingo. Russell did an in- 

 teresting survey of nineteenth-century his- 

 tory texts for secondary schools and found 

 that very few mentioned the flat earth 

 myth before 1 870, but that almost all texts 

 after 1880 featured the legend. We can 

 therefore pinpoint the invasion of general 

 culture by the flat earth myth to the period 

 between 1860 and 1890. 



These years also featured the spread of 

 an intellectual movement based on the 

 second error of taxonomic categories ex- 

 plored in this essay — the portrayal of 

 Western history as a perpetual struggle, if 

 not an outright "war," between science 

 and reUgion, with progress linked to the 

 victory of science and the consequent re- 

 treat of theology. Such movements always 

 need whipping boys and legends to ad- 

 vance their claims. Russell argues that the 

 flat earth myth achieved its canonical sta- 

 tus as a primary homily for the triumph of 

 science under this false dichotomization of 

 Western history. How could a better story 

 for the army of science ever be concocted? 

 Religious darkness destroys Greek knowl- 

 edge and weaves us into a web of fears 

 based on dogma and opposed to both ra- 

 tionality and experience. Our ancestors 

 therefore lived in anxiety, restricted by of- 



ficial irrationality, afraid that any chal- 

 lenge could only lead to a fall off the edge 

 of the earth into eternal damnation. A fit 

 tale for its intended purpose, but entirely 

 false because few medieval scholars ever 

 doubted the earth's sphericity. 



I was especially drawn to this topic be- 

 cause the myth of dichotomy and warfare 

 between science and religion — an impor- 

 tant nineteenth-century theme with major, 

 and largely unfortunate, repercussions ex- 

 tending to our fimes — received its greatest 

 boost in two books that I own and treasure 

 for their firm commitment to rationality 

 (however wrong and ultimately harmful 

 their dichotomizing model of history) and 

 for an interesting Darwinian connection 

 with each author (I have often said that I 

 write these essays as a tradesman, not a 

 polymath, and that my business is evolu- 

 tionary theory). Russell identifies these 

 same two books as the primary codifiers of 

 the flat earth myth: John W. Draper's His- 

 tory of the Conflict between Religion and 

 Science, first published in 1874; and An- 

 drew Dickson White's A History of the 

 Warfare of Science with Theology in 

 Christendom, published in 1896 (a great 

 expansion of a small book first written in 

 1876 and called The Warfare of Science). 



Draper (1811-1882) was bom in Eng- 

 land but emigrated to the United States in 

 1 832, where he evenhially became head of 

 the medical school at New York Univer- 

 sity. His 1874 book ranks among the great 

 publishing successes of the late nineteenth 

 century — fifty printings in fifty years as 



the best-selling volume of the Interna- 

 tional Scientific Series, the most presti- 

 gious and popular of nineteenth-century 

 publishing projects in science. Draper 

 states his thesis in the preface: 



The history of Science is not a mere record 

 of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the 

 conflict of two contending powers, the ex- 

 pansive force of the human intellect on one 

 side, and the compressing arising from tra- 

 ditionary faith and human interests on the 

 other. . . . Faith is in its nature unchangeable, 

 stationary; Science is in its nature progres- 

 sive; and eventually a divergence between 

 them, impossible to conceal, must take 

 place. 



Draper extolled the flat earth myth as a 

 primary example of reUgion's constraint 

 and science's progressive power: 



The circular visible horizon and its dip at 

 sea, the gradual appearance and disappear- 

 ance of ships in the offing, cannot fail to in- 

 cline intelligent sailors to a beUef in the 

 globular figure of the earth. The writings of 

 the Mohammedan astronomers and philoso- 

 phers had given currency to that doctrine 

 throughout Western Europe, but, as might 

 be expected, it was received with disfavor 

 by theologians.. . . Traditions and policy for- 

 bade [the papal government] to admit any 

 other than the flat figure of the earth, as re- 

 vealed in the Scriptures. 



Russell comments on the success of 

 Draper's work: 



The History of the Conflict is of immense 

 importance, because it was the first instance 

 that an influential figure had expUciUy de- 

 clared that science and reUgion were at war, 

 and it succeeded as few books ever do. It 

 fixed in the educated mind the idea that "sci- 

 ence" stood for freedom and progress 

 against the superstition and repression of 

 "religion." Its viewpoint became conven- 

 tional wisdom. 



Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) 

 grew up in Syracuse, New York, and 

 founded Cornell University in 1865 as one 

 of tiie first avowedly secular institutions of 

 higher learning in America. He wrote of 

 file goals he shared with his main benefac- 

 tor, Ezra Cornell: 



Our purpose was to establish in the State 

 of New York an institution for advanced in- 

 struction and research, in which science, 

 pure and applied, should have an equal 

 place with literature; in which the study of 

 literature, ancient and modem, should be 

 emancipated as much as possible from 

 pedantry.... We had especially determined 

 that the institution should be under the con- 

 trol of no political party and of no single re- 

 ligious sect. 



White avowed that his decision to 

 found a secular university reflected no 



16 Natural History 3/94 



