Continuing on the Christian line: the idea that biblical inerrantism was at all a common position prior to the twentieth century (and especially that it was a universal position prior to Darwin, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, or any historical period of choice that really just singles out the Middle Ages). The idea that the Old Testament creation story should be taken as a literal scientific narrative, with no room for innovation or contradiction, was not a medieval one in the slightest. Most educated medieval people subscribed to Aristotelian-Ptolemaian astronomy, which originally had absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical myth and indeed contradicted it in several key aspects - especially by omission: the Bible says nothing about the astronomic "spheres" or even the planets themselves. They certainly didn't think of the latter as a guide, or even a starting point, for scientific inquiry.
Instead, the prevailing position prior to the Reformation, and moreover prior to the codification of Evangelical fundamentalism in the 1910's, was Biblical infallibilism: the belief that the Bible, once mediated through ecclesiastical interpretation, was correct on all ethical and theological points. Some Biblical assertions that we might consider "scientific" or "historical" today may have been considered as such in the Middle Ages, but all of them were more importantly allegorical revelations.
So if some idiot like Dawkins comes along thinking he's dismantled the entire medieval worldview because "how could there have been days before the Sun was made???", you should know better.