Wasn't really getting at a science vs religion thing there so much as Hero of Reason vs Ignorant Morons concept. Columbus is an example, though a queer one since the notion he was arguing against Flat Earthers was essentially fabricated centuries after the fact from whole cloth. Columbus is portrayed as passionately arguing for reason while in reality he was just involved in a mild argument about his calculations being off, which was true. Certainly there are a lot of science vs religion examples, some rather exaggerated, some utterly untrue, and some spot on, but I was pointing out that these heated science and logic debates of the past were often as evenly matched in logic as they were in passion and the nominal morons/villains of the piece often raised entirely valid points while the 'winners' were often guilty of the most impressive handwaving and bad logic themselves. There were no violent clashes (literally or metaphorically) with Columbus and that's a fair point to raise but again wasn't really where I was aiming.