Zetetic astronomy internet archive
![zetetic astronomy internet archive zetetic astronomy internet archive](https://archive.org/services/img/Zetetic_Scholar_No_03_and_04/full/pct:200/0/default.jpg)
![zetetic astronomy internet archive zetetic astronomy internet archive](https://tenpound.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/41163-1.jpg)
Both locate the problems of contemporary society in the rejection of their claim. Both make their claim the linchpin to orthodoxy, so that disagreeing with them leads to the denial of central doctrines. There are plenty of parallels between young-earth and flat-earth literature. If that's what you have to believe in order to be a Christian, then it just obviously fails the smell test. Second, it creates a rather large stumbling block for belief in Christianity. As I've mentioned before, I don't think it's wise to let those who deprecate our faith define it for us. Moreover, it leads to two deplorable situations: first, as I've already mentioned, where the dictates of one's faith are actually made up by people trying to mock it. You can't love the Lord with all your mind if your theology is based on knee-jerk reactions. I submit that this is not an appropriate way for a Christian to act. Nevertheless, the history of young-earth creationism in the last 50 years reveals it to be a reaction rather than a reasoned response, in a very similar fashion as belief in a flat earth was a reaction against the forces of secularism. I don't think it's on the same level as belief in a flat-earth for the simple reason that, throughout history, many of the holiest Christians believed the earth and universe to be young. That leads me to my main point: I think young-earth creationism is another example of Christians letting secularists define Christian belief. It seems to me to be an extreme example of Christians reacting to the conflict myth by letting secularists tell them what to believe, another example being contemporary defenses of geocentrism, something which has gained support among young-earth creationists. A list of resources by and about flat-earthers is here. Here is a list of flat-earth literature available to read online. To this day there is a flat-earth society which defends this kind of thing. Rowbotham compiled dozens of evidences supporting his claim that the earth was flat and stationary, such as lighthouses that could be seen from further away than they should if the surface is curved, cannonballs fired straight up from moving platforms (demonstrating that the earth is not moving), etc. The most prominent defender, in the mid-19th century, was Samuel Rowbotham, who wrote the book Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe.
![zetetic astronomy internet archive zetetic astronomy internet archive](https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/flat/fl-orbit.gif)
Once non-Christians started ridiculing Christianity as promoting a flat earth, some Christians sought to defend their faith by. Rather than add to what they wrote, I'd like to address a parallel issue. The go-to book for all of this is Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell (you can read a short essay by Russell here) who traces the myth to about 1830 when Washington Irving wrote his "history" of Columbus. Humphrey wrote a couple of excellent blogposts on it here and here. I recently linked to this post by M&M, here's another, and here's one James wrote. There are some good essays online on the flat earth myth - the belief that people thought the earth was flat prior to Columbus.