"As for the extract I've quoted above, we've only to look at the case of the Church's persecution of Galilleo--in terms virtually identical to some of the arguments of some Creationists."
You should learn more about the persecution of Galilleo.
Facts that most people don't know about Galilleo:
* Heliocentrism had been thought up by the Greeks, and likewise rejected by them long before the Church was ever involved
* The pope allowed Gallileo to teach and write about heliocentrism, as long as he presented it along with geocentrism in a balanced view
* The pope would have allowed Gallileo to write exclusively about heliocentrism if Gallileo could prove it, he could not
* Gallileo's model had numerous technical problems. One of the biggest of which was that he assumed circular orbits, so he _still_ had epicycles. Keppler got rid of the epicycles. Likewise, there was no parallax motion of the stars -- a criticism that Gallileo had no answer to (it turns out they are just too far away).
* Gallileo was not just tough on astronomy, but it also invalidated all physical theory developed to that point, with no replacement. Aristotle's physics was based on location, with different physics accompanying different heights above the earth. With the earth no longer at the center, Aristotelian physics was completely invalidated, with a replacement model not forthcoming for many, many years (i.e. Newton).
* Gallileo's book describing heliocentrism (which he was supposed to present a balanced view with geocentrism) had two characters -- "smart" and "stupid", and he put the geocentrist view in stupid's mouth, using the POPE'S OWN WORDS. This is what got him into trouble -- putting the pope's words into the mouth of the character "stupid".
Note that Keppler did not have trouble with his Church, nor did Copernicus, nor did Newton. In fact, the main critics of Gallileo was not the Church but the academics -- especially because of the implications for physics. He only got in trouble with the Church when he decided to publish a book declaring the pope stupid.
Did the pope handle it right? Obviously not. But to portray this as persecution of science by the Church because of Biblical literalism just shows how much the establishment can distort the facts of what actually happened.
"...nor did Copernicus (have trouble with his Church)"
Might be because he didn't publish until after he was dead. :)
What business did the Pope have telling Galileo what he could teach or publish. What business did the Pope have questioning Galileo?
Besides. It wasn't just Catholics. Martin Luther insisted that the sun revolves around the earth because the Bible says so.
You should learn more about Giordano Bruno.
In all honesty, I count myself an interested student of the subject, and would be delighted to learn more. I genuinely appreciate your reply to my post; I do not, with respect, agree with all the interpretations you have set out, but would be delighted to explore these matters further with you, if you are agreeable (and allowing for interruptions as I also have to get the kids ready for bed shortly!)
Can we begin with this assertion:
Heliocentrism had been thought up by the Greeks, and likewise rejected by them long before the Church was ever involved
No one is suggesting that heliocentrism originated with Galilleo, and you are right to point out the theory was certainly current in Classical Greece, if not before. But it is not accurate to state that "the Greeks" or even Greek 'scientists' somehow collectively considered and then rejected heliocentric theory: individuals held different views (Aristotle rejected it, Eratosthenes embraced it to the extent of predicating that the earth was spherical and even calculating, using experimental methods, it's circumference, to a remarkable degree of accuracy--though partly through luck, that's another story!).
The above isn't meant to be pedantic: it is important to note that, in most Greek states that were democratic (another splendid idea of theirs), there was no religious body that ruled on 'orthodoxy' or 'doctrine.' The trial of Socrates, in which a charge of atheism was included, was entirely exceptional--another story, off the subject for now.
The pope allowed Gallileo to teach and write about heliocentrism, as long as he presented it along with geocentrism in a balanced view
With respect, this sounds awfully like the ID "teach the controversy" argument transposed to Galilleo's day. I'd like to check the sources for your claim before commenting further -- back shortly. Thanks