It all started when some of the Ancient Greek Philosophers decided that they wanted to rebel against the scriptures by showing that the Earth and various phenomena could be explained through natural processes rather than divine intervention.
I don't know if that was their motivation. If so it was misguided. Although I don't know what you mean by "the scriptures". Would the ancient Greeks have been that well versed in what we now know as the Old Testament?
But it's worth remembering they were working at a time when most things were probably understood by "God did it". Or, at that time, "the gods".
Volcano? The gods are angry. And so on.
Starting to understand how volcanoes work, what the physical processes make them erupt, doesn't detract from being in awe of the power they have.
Any more than understanding how sunlight reflects and refracts through raindrops detracts from how beautiful rainbows are.
It is possible to understand the mechanics of certain things and still be in awe of God and His creation.
In fact, the more you learn about science the more mind-blowing some of it is.
We later found out that this process of investigation is invalid, and that Scientific truth could only really be discovered through experimentation rather than the fallacy of human interpretation.
Any experiment has underlying assumptions and the results have to be interpreted.
You have a whole page about how if you assume a flat earth then Eratosthenes' experiment result could be interpreted as meaning a close sun.
But you've also assumed light going in straight lines which contradicts your EA theory so I'm a bit confused about that one.
When browsing the titles of science books at a local bookstore you will find that this whole secular movement and attitude of "Here are observations which disprove scripture" continues today. We find titles like 'The God delusion', 'Outgrowing God', 'Nullifying God', etc. Clearly an underlying motive there.
I'm going to do something I don't often do and agree with you there. There are some scientists who are clearly anti-God and anti religion.
You indirectly mention Dawkins. I wonder about him. I've read The Blind Watchmaker and it's really well written and explained.
But why does he feel the need to write books about God? I've not read The God Delusion. Part of me thinks I should if only to understand his argument and so I can respond to anyone who has read it. But the stuff I have seen him write or say about religion or God betrays such an ignorance of the subject I wonder why he feels the need to pontificate about it. It's not enough for him to not believe, he has to try and stop anyone else believing too. He's obviously got a real chip on his shoulder about religion and I wonder why. What has happened to him? He's of a generation where I guess he'd have been made to go to church as a kid so I'm guessing he had a bad experience. It's sad really.
But anyway, I'd suggest that people like him are in the minority in the scientific world. Maybe most scientists are atheist. I don't know. But I don't think many of them are actively trying to "disprove God". I don't know where this idea that religion and science are in conflict and you have to "pick a side" comes from. I really don't see it that way.
If you believe in a flat earth because you are a Biblical literalist, as Rowbotham was, then I'd ask what shape the earth is. Because there are verses talking about the "circle of the earth" but there are verses talking about the "four corners of the earth". Circles famously don't have corners.
If you see a bit of science which conflicts with your understanding of Scripture then you seem to be one of those people who assumes that the science must be wrong. But there is another option - maybe your understanding of Scripture is wrong. Note, your understanding of it, not the Scripture itself. I don't think many Christians believe in a flat earth - I don't know any that do. Pretty much all of us have come to understand that parts of the Bible talk poetically and aren't to be read like a scientific text.
If scientists are actively trying to disprove God then they are misguided. But if any Christians are trying to disprove science which disagrees with their understanding of Scripture then I'd suggest they're equally misguided. Science and Christianity can both answer questions about creation but in different ways. Science would be looking at the mechanics of it and Christians would be talking about the purpose behind it.
I'll leave the final word to Pope John Paul II, who once said:
Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.