When I heard the professor assert that Copernicanism had posed threat to Christianity, I couldn't help groaning inwardly, for I knew quite well from my own reading in the history of science that this assertion was not true--even though it is widely believed (during my own class, I actually pointed out to the students that what the professor had said was not quite correct). As Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton comment in their book The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy:
Modern historians often write as though Copernican theory represented a grave threat to the Christian view of human significance. Copernicus demoted mankind, it is said, from his exalted place on the center stage of the universe...
The implication is that Christians mobilized against Copernicanism to resist this shattering of their cozy cosmology. But the literature of the day does little to support this portrayal. It is true that medieval cosmology, adapted from Aristotelian philosophy, placed the earth at the center of the universe. But in medieval cosmology the center of the universe was not a place of special significance. Quite the contrary, it was the locus of evil. At the very center of the universe was Hell, then the earth, then (moving outward from the center) the progressively nobler spheres of the heavens.
In this scheme of things, humanity's central location was no compliment, nor was its loss a demotion. In fact, in Copernicus's own day a common objection to his theory was that it elevated mankind above his true station. In medieval cosmology, human significance was rooted not in the earth's central location but in the regard God shows toward it. Hence the idea that Copernican theory threatened the Christian teaching of human significance is an anachronism. It reads back into history the angst of our own age. (pp. 37-38)
I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on the professor. She was probably just repeating what she had been taught. Moreover, my impression is that the history of science is not her area of specialization. Nonetheless, the fact that a trained historian should make such a historically inaccurate claim is rather disheartening (as was the fact that throughout her discussion of 16th century European history, she never mentioned the Reformation--whose 500th anniversary is being commemorated this year!). This little episode just serves to illustrate how deeply engrained--even among those who should know better-- is the myth that Christianity has always been in conflict with science. This suggests a need to take to heart Copernicus's own words: "To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge" (as quoted in brainyquote.com).
Image of Copernicus from Wikimedia Commons