"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

[peyton randolph]

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

[Rippin]

I'm noticing a shift in the spin of the evolution proponents. They are still just as strong on common descent, but getting a lot softer on the mechanism.

[atlaw]

Well, gee Elsie. Not much of a response.

How else do you propose that faith be tested if not against that which would otherwise be unfathomable to our sense of logic or our perceptions? How else, for example, was the faith and integrity of Job to be tested except through the illogic of great affliction on an otherwise blameless and upright man?

And how else do you propose that scientific propositions be tested except against the the inverse of this test for faith -- i.e., against that which our logic and our perceptions tell us should be so?

[onedoug]

"I guess it's completely pointless to ask for any evidence...."

Not really. Though by its nature subjective, I'd cite the creation of the universe from nothing, the fact that reproduction in species couldn't have "evolved" but had to be "programmed" in from inception, and the appearance of the eye in each phylum, fully developed, for which there are no predecessors in the fossil record.

I really love science and the scientific method. It only compliments religion.

[Virginia-American]

the fact that reproduction in species couldn't have "evolved" but had to be "programmed" in from inception,

Huh? Reproduction is part of any definition of life.

Perhaps you are having trouble imaging how to get from bacterial-style fission to sexual reproduction. Definitely a hard problem, not completely solved yet. Here's some speculation on the topic.

Keep in mind that bacteria exchange DNA, but it's not related to reproduction. Also learn about the reproductive cycles of the protista. Some of these do not have the same sort of meiosis as other eukaryotes, and probably give a clue about some of the steps involved in the evolution of meiosis.

So, your claim "...the fact that reproduction in species couldn't have "evolved"..." is not a fact; there is no reason to suppose sexual reproduction and meiosis couldn't have evolved, and there is active research trying to pin down all the steps involved.

[onedoug]

"Keep in mind that bacteria exchange DNA, but it's not related to reproduction.

"...and there is active research trying to pin down all the steps involved.

Well, DNA exchange by any other name yet seems "reproduction" to me. And neither did sexual reproduction "evolve" from any predecessor, by the fossil record.

As much as I respect the sophistication of your argument, I'll stand by mine.

Thanks.

[jcb8199]

I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...

[jcb8199]

In this age of satellites and Hubble telescopes, you ask what other proof there has been?

As I mentioned, the viewing of parallaxes pretty much settled the case.

[jcb8199]

Except that Copernican theory requires a parallax, a phenomenon whereby a star seems to shift in position as the Earth moves. Kind of like if I were to hold up a ball directly in front of my face and you were to stand on my left--the ball would obscure my right ear; if you then shifted positions to my right (as the Earth might in orbit) the ball would obscure my left ear. Stars would, in the Copernican model, shift in relation to other stars. Distance also works into the equation--if the Earth is moving, the distance would change, however minutely.

It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun. There will not be any other evidence that shows otherwise, unless we get into wormholes or quantum theory or some other such discussion. Satellites revolve. Are you telling me that we can't have any other experiments to set as FACT or LAW that the Earth revolves, and so thus it is a "theory"?
Mind you, I don't dispute the definition of a theory--I don't confuse it with hypothesis. But you are saying that it is supported by evidence and makes useful predictions but is not conclusively proven? Forgive me if I sound incredulous, but I fail to understand your argument--the Earth has been "evidenced" to revolve around the Sun, not "proven"? Please clarify...

[jcb8199]

1) The Inquisition was to root out people within the Church. Persecution of Jews or witches is another matter entirely. Heresy is teaching something other than accepted doctrine or beliefs; of course Jews or whomever had different beliefs, and taught them. The Inquisition was aimed at Catholics (and even then was not nearly on the scale that modern historians like to make it seem).

2) So since there "never will be absolute proof for a scientific theory," then we HAVEN'T proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Galileo had a HYPOTHESIS. His HYPOTHESIS had to be proven, something he couldn't definitively do, which Newton did, and more advanced telescopes proved. So if his "theory" can't be proven...what, we don't revolve around the Sun, or we need more evidence, or it is something that can be DISproven?

3) I never said he had no evidence, I said he couldn't PROVE it. He had evidence, and quite compelling evidence at that. Had he stuck with THAT, and laid it out as a HYPOTHESIS, there never would've been any issue. But he taught as FACT that which he could not prove WAS fact.

4) I fail to see the issue--the Church, acting within its power (Galileo submitted himself to it, after all) both theologically, in interpreting the scriptures, and legally (as we have already discussed) told Galileo to not teach as fact that which was hypothesis. Copernicus' ideas were well known and were not scorned or forbidden until Galileo started teaching them as fact--something that wouldn't be definitively proven for some time. End of story.

5) Again bringing up the intro that someone ELSE wrote? Or are you speaking of the intro in which he dedicated De Revolutionibus" to Pope Paul III?

I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgement of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves. Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.

But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, my friends drew me back. Foremost among them was the cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg, renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred letters as well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, sometimes adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and finally permit it to appear after being buried among my papers and lying concealed not merely until the ninth year but by now the fourth period of nine years. The same conduct was recommended to me by not a few other very eminent scholars. They exhorted me no longer to refuse, on account of the fear which I felt, to make my work available for the general use of students of astronomy. Ile crazier my doctrine of the earth's motion now appeared to most people, the argument ran, so much the more admiration and thanks would it gain after they saw the publication of my writings dispel the fog of absurdity by most luminous proofs. Influenced therefore by these persuasive men and by this hope, in the end I allowed my friends to bring out an edition of the volume, as they had long besought me to do.

However, Your Holiness will perhaps not be greatly surprised that I have dared to publish my studies after devoting so much effort to working them out that I did not hesitate to put down my thoughts about the earth's motion in written fcrm too. But you are rather waiting to hear from me how it occurred to me to venture to conceive any motion of the earth, against the traditional opinion of astronomers and almost against common sense. I have accordingly no desire to from Your Holiness that I was impelled to consider a different system of deducing the motions of the universe's spheres for no other reason than the realization that astronomers do not agree among themselves in their investigations of this subject. For, in the first place, they are so uncertain about the motion of the sun and moon that they cannot establish and observe a constant length even for the tropical year. Secondly, in determining the motions not only of these bodies but also of the other five planets, they do not use the same principles, assumptions, and explanations of the apparent revolutions and motions. For while some employ only homocentrics, others utilize eccentrics and epicycles, and yet they do not quite reach their goal. For although those who put their faith in homocentrics showed that some nonuniform motions could be compounded in this way, nevertheless by this means they were unable to obtain any incontrovertible result in absolute agreement with the phenomena. On the other hand, those who devised the eccentrics seem thereby in large measure to have solved the problem of the apparent motions with appropriate calculations. But meanwhile they introduced a good many ideas which apparently contradict the first principles of uniform motion. Nor could they elicit or deduce from the eccentrics the principal consideration, that is, the structure of the universe and the true symmetry of its parts. On the contrary, their experience was just like some one taking from various places hands, feet, a head, and other pieces, very well depicted, it may be, but not for the representation of a single person; since these fragments would not belong to one another at all, a monster rather than a man would be put together from them. Hence in the process of demonstration or "method", as it is called, those who employed eccentrics are found either to have omitted something essential or to have admitted something extraneous and wholly irrelevant. This would not have happened to them, had they followed sound principles. For if the hypotheses assumed by them were not false, everything which follows from their hypotheses would be confirmed beyond any doubt. Even though what I am now saying may be obscure, it will nevertheless become clearer in the proper place.

For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical traditions concerning the derivation of the motions of the universe's spheres. I began to be annoyed that the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all, were not understood with greater certainty by the philosophers, who otherwise examined so precisely the most insignificant trifles of this world. For this reason I undertook the task of rereading the works of all the philosophers which I could obtain to learn whether anyone had ever proposed other motions of the universe's spheres than those expounded by the teachers of astronomy in the schools. And in fact first I found in Cicero that Hicetas supposed the earth to move. Later I also discovered in Plutarch that certain others were of this opinion. I have decided to set his words down here, so that they may be available to everybody:

Some think that the earth remains at rest. But Philolaus the Pythagorean believes that, like the sun and moon, it revolves around the fire in an oblique circle. Heraclides of Pontus, and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the earth move, not in a progressive motion, but like a wheel in a rotation from west to east about its own center.

Therefore, having obtained the opportunity from these sources, I too began to consider the mobility of the earth. And even though the idea seemed absurd, nevertheless I knew that others before me had been granted the freedom to imagine any circles whatever for the purpose of explaining the heavenly phenomena. Hence I thought that I too would be readily permitted to ascertain whether explanations sounder than those of my predecessors could be found for the revolution of the celestial spheres on the assumption of some motion of the earth.

Having thus assumed the motions which I ascribe to the earth later on in the volume, by long and intense study I finally found that if the motions of the other planets are correlated with the orbiting of the earth, and are computed for the revolution of each planet, not only do their phenomena follow therefrom but also the order and size of all the planets and spheres, and heaven itself is so linked together that in no portion of it can anything be shifted without disrupting the remaining parts and the universe as a whole. Accordingly in the arrangement of the volume too I have adopted the following order. In the first book I set forth the entire distribution of the spheres together with the motions which I attribute to the earth, so that this book contains, as it were, the general structure of the universe. Then in the remaining books I correlate the motions of the other planets and of all the spheres with the movement of the earth so that I may thereby determine to what extent the motions and appearances of the other planets and spheres can be saved if they are correlated with the earth's motions. I have no doubt that acute and learned astronomers will agree with me if, as this discipline especially requires, they are willing to examine and consider, not superficially but thoroughly, what I adduce in this volume in proof of these matters. However, in order that the educated and uneducated alike may see that I do not run away from the judgement of anybody at all, I have preferred dedicating my studies to Your Holiness rather than to anyone else. For even in this very remote comer of the earth where I live you are considered the highest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and astronomy too. Hence by your prestige and judgement you can easily suppress calumnious attacks although, as the proverb has it, there is no remedy for a backbite.

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at the head of which Your Holiness now stands. For not so long ago under Leo X the Lateran Council considered the problem of reforming the ecclesiastical calendar. The issue remained undecided then only because the lengths of the year and month and the motions of the sun and moon were regarded as not yet adequately measured. From that time on, at the suggestion of that most distinguished man, Paul, bishop of Fossombrone, who was then in charge of this matter, I have directed my attention to a more precise study of these topics. But what I have accomplished in this regard, I leave to the judgement of Your Holiness in particular and of all other learned astronomers. And lest I appear to Your Holiness to promise more about the usefulness of this volume than I can fulfill, I now turn to the work itself.

6) Had he been "silenced," he wouldn't have done his best work AFTER being put under house arrest. You seem to think that I agree with his "persecution"--from our stand point, the Church was totally wrong; but from THEIR standpoint, he was teaching as fact that which he couldn't PROVE was fact. As you and I have already agreed, the Church had its power in Northern Italy--considerably less than you might like to think, but power nonetheless. So sure, he could've run away, and would've likely found some Protestant patron who would protect him (scriptural interpretation aside, it was a great way to get at the Church less than 100 years after the Reformation). But he didn't--he submitted himself to the Church. So cry me a river for his being "silenced"--he submitted HIMSELF to it.

7) The Church (as well as every scientist and philosopher that agreed with it) had to prove nearly 1500 years of accepted astronomical, mathematical, philosophical, and (most importantly) scientific "fact"? Because ONE MAN, with compelling evidence (but not COMPLETE and FINAL) evidence said they were wrong? How does that work?

I am not "defending" their "discarded position;" I, first of all, wanted to point out that the Galileo affair is often mistrepresented, and more often than not misunderstood. Secondly, I was pointing out that in the science of the day (as well as in the science of ours) one must provide EVIDENCE, incontrivertible and final, before one can teach a HYPOTHESIS as FACT. Galileo had evidence, yes--I have never said he didn't. He couldn't PROVE, however, that what he was teaching was, indeed, fact. Newton provided that evidence, and more sophisticated telescopes cemented the FACT. Galileo started the ball rolling with his hypothesis, the Church simply wanted it to remain that until there was enough evidence to solidify it.
Now, why it took them until the 1800s can be debated, but I would wager that we would agree--it is made up of human beings, and We are often loathe to admit our mistakes, particularly after the fuss the Affair caused. Does that make it right? Nope. But I would be curious for you to find me a quote where I said "the Church was right to do it, and never should have said they were wrong." I've been saying all along--He taught as fact that which he couldn't prove was fact, and the Church just wanted more evidence before it completely reconfigured its view of the Universe (it, along with almost every scientist of the day).
Now, if we take what someone else said on this board, that, essentially, it still hasn't been proven, we have another discussion entirely...

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Strictly speaking from my own point of view as an observer the earth does no such thing. That, too, is a fact. The statement applies as a "fact" depending upon one's conception of the relative bodies. Does that mean more than one fact can govern a particular phenomenon? Not necessarily. But the phenomenon may be described factually from more than one point of view with astonishing differences between them.

The leads to the philosophical consideration that the correlation between positive statements and objective reality - the concept of "fact" - is dependent upon both the observer and what resides outside of the observer. At what point does a positive statement merit the status of "fact?"

I can accept both statements as fact: The Sun rises. The Earth revolves. Is one of these statements more factual than the other? From an experiential standpoint the former is by far more obvious. From the standpoint of indirect evidence I am experiencing, and objectively viewing, a result of the Earth's revolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The Inquisition was to root out people within the Church."

I am sure that they took the time to discern the real denomination of whoever came before their courts. lol

"So since there "never will be absolute proof for a scientific theory," then we HAVEN'T proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun?"

We haven't pinpointed the exact orbits, no.

"Galileo had a HYPOTHESIS. His HYPOTHESIS had to be proven, something he couldn't definitively do, which Newton did, and more advanced telescopes proved. So if his "theory" can't be proven...what, we don't revolve around the Sun, or we need more evidence, or it is something that can be DISproven?"

I don't give a rat's ass if Galileo had any evidence or not. It was wrong for the church to silence him, NO MATTER WHAT his argument was. That it was correct is beside the point. That he had positive evidence is beside the point.

"I never said he had no evidence, I said he couldn't PROVE it. He had evidence, and quite compelling evidence at that. Had he stuck with THAT, and laid it out as a HYPOTHESIS, there never would've been any issue. But he taught as FACT that which he could not prove WAS fact."

So what? The Church couldn't prove a damn thing either. Why do they get a pass?

"Again bringing up the intro that someone ELSE wrote? "

Are you deliberately stupid? I have repeatedly said someone else wrote the intro for Copernicus. That's the whole point; if Copernicus' ACTUAL beliefs were known, the book would have been banned.

" Had he been "silenced,"..."

He was forced to recant. That's the state silencing a dissenter.

"You seem to think that I agree with his "persecution"--from our stand point, the Church was totally wrong; but from THEIR standpoint, he was teaching as fact that which he couldn't PROVE was fact."

You DO agree with it. That is why you are defending what the Church today has condemned.

"Because ONE MAN, with compelling evidence (but not COMPLETE and FINAL) evidence said they were wrong? How does that work? "

Reason. That and separation of Church and state.

[highball]

I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...

Nonsense.

If "proof" was all the Church was looking for, they would have cleared Galileo once the evidence was presented.

Tell me again how long it took the Church to admit that they were wrong and Galileo was right?

It wasn't about evidence. It was about Church dogma first and foremost.

Fortunately, the Church is no longer being run by anti-Science zealots. That's why the Church accepts evolution.

[jcb8199]

1) Research the Inquisition. It is far less intrusive than modern history has led you to believe.

2) So since we haven't pinpointed the exact orbits, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun? In which case Galileo wasn't right after all?

3) He submitted himself to the authority of the Church. The Church was the religious and secular authority in his region; he could have moved out of such influence. He still would have been under pressure from the scientific crowd, but he did not have to submit himself to their power.

4) Copernicus wrote an intro just the same. I included it in the post, you might see. His beliefs WERE well known. It was not until Galileo taught those beliefs as FACT that Copernicus' work came under fire. He wrote the book, as you will see, after prompting by CATHOLIC friends, including a priest and a cardinal. You have some really misguided perceptions about the age of the Scientific Revolution if you think that Copernicus was alone with his thoughts, that no one else knew them.

5) ...a "state" to whose power the "silenced" submitted himself...

6) I agree only with the desire to protect truth; the Church, while wrong (as I have said repeatedly), was, simply, motivated out of a desire to protect truth. It is hardly science if one man can come along claiming proof of something not only fairly revolutionary (an idea 70 years old vs. an accepted "fact" nearly 1500) but counter-intuitive and beyond the grasp of reason and everyone just says "Hooray for you! You did it!" Science is not that--science is observing, testing, analyzing, recording, and holding your work out to be refuted. Galileo taught it as fact before it was established as such.
And again, he submitted himself to the authority of the Church.

7) "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary--it doesn't feel like its moving, it doesn't look like it's moving, and (apparently) hasn't been proven its moving. Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)
As for separation of Church and state, I agree with you. I, however, am capable of looking at it from the historic perspective without the taint of our modern sensibilities.

[jcb8199]

I have already addressed this--in my estimation, they were slow to accept it because A) it was not sufficiently proven for nearly a century, B) the Church is made up of men, and after the stink of the whole thing, they were loathe to admit fault, as any man is.

You say "Church" dogma like it was only the Church in opposition to Galileo--Protestants as well as his fellow scientists, astronomers, and mathematicians were by and large opposed to it. They weren't so much holding to "dogma" as they were holding to "accepted scientific fact."

Read a book--starting with How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and you will see how WRONG your comment about "anti-science zealots" actually is. Seriously. Read it. Educate yourself.

And the Church hasn't "accepted" evolution. It has just said it is not incompatible with the story of creation or the idea that God implemented it. If evolution is removed from the realm of Divine Inspiration then the Church DOES NOT accept it.

[jcb8199]

Boxes are blue.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Copernicus wrote an intro just the same."

NO, he didn't. You just said before that it WASN'T Copernicus who wrote the intro. That is correct. Copernicus believed that the Earth REALLY DID move around the Sun. If THIS view was well known, the book would have been banned.


Now, please tell me why Galileo would have to *prove* beyond doubt his theory when the Church NEVER HAD TO PROVE THEIRS? They OBVIOUSLY didn't, as it is WRONG. You have evaded this question now a few times already.

" "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary"

No it doesn't; you're thinking of common sense. Very different thing.

"Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)"

And that evidence, which you require from Galileo, you don't require from the Church. Your double standard is obvious.

[jcb8199]

Osiander, Schoenberg, and Copernicus all had an intro to the book. The one that called it "hypothetical" was Osianders. Copernicus wrote his own intro. We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's.

No, REASON says the Earth is stationery. See, here is where "historical perspective" is nice. Common sense and reason were simpatico 400+ years ago. Common sense said that the Earth didn't move, and reason, as they investigated it, concurred. The Earth doesn't feel like it is moving, all the heavenly bodies seem like the are, so REASON, if you just sit and stare, tends to indicate that you are right. But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong.

Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?

[highball]

they were slow to accept it because A) it was not sufficiently proven for nearly a century, B) the Church is made up of men, and after the stink of the whole thing, they were loathe to admit fault, as any man is.

Exactly. That in no way contradicts what I said.

They were loathe to admit that church dogma was incorrect. Even when it was shown to be incorrect, the men who make up the Church and set its policy took hundreds of years to admit that the Church's position was wrong.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?"

I am showing the hypocrisy of your position. You require of Galileo what you NEVER required of the Church: proof.

"No, REASON says the Earth is stationery."

No, you are confusing common sense with reason.

"But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong."

Galileo did though, and reason showed he was right (if you stand by the above statement).

"We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's."

Which said, contrary to Copernicus' position, that the model presented was not physically real.

[jcb8199]

Why should the Church have to prove that which had been accepted and "proven" for nearly 1500 years? The burden of proof was on Galileo, as he was challenging the scientific standard.

--Reason:
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
--Common Sense;
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment

So, 500+ years ago, if I were to logically, rationally, and analytically think about it, it would seem that the Earth didn't move; Common sense would back up that assertion, as I don't feel like I am moving, and the Earth doesn't show it, so it must be that I am still. Again, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE is useful...

Galileo peered through a telescope, right. Then when he was challenged, he offered no concrete evidence, something which would have been helpful, to say the least, as it flies in the face of REASON and COMMON SENSE that he was right, not to mention it was contrary to 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific knowledge. Now, if he had said look, this telescope backs me up, as does this and this, and this law of Gravity that Newton will develop in 100 years, and this idea about orbits Kepler has already developed &c... we'd not be having this discussion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said it so simply--a telescope alone does not do the trick because you can't see the Earth moving, you can see everything around the Earth moving. Reason would say, OK, this is compelling, I wonder what other evidence I can find.

Again, GALILEO WAS RIGHT--he was not wrong in his Copernican assertion. The ONLY issue I see here, and the only thing with which I have a problem is that you seem to think he should have been showered with accolades for NOT proving his assertion--he made a compelling case, but not until Newton 100 years later and parallaxes &c even later was he DEFINITIVELY vindicated. He submitted himself to the Church's authority, so that is a non-issue. He was criticized by his fellow scientists. He had not presented sufficient evidence to overturn 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific "fact". Why do you require the Church prove that which had already been "proven"?