Yes, science can only prove the greatness of God, when it is true science, not conjecture.
The Genesis account is totally accurate.
He tried to show that it did not conflict with the Bible It doesn't. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials
Correct. However, the Church imposed on both scholars a requirement to state that their work is mere speculation and not the way things really are (because we can never really know how things are and all that jazz...). This "disclaimer" appears in all their books at the very beginning.
And for something to be considered be scientifally proved it has to be tested.
That is why evolution is regarded as a 'theory'. Well, as it turns out, it is the way things are (as far as humans are concerned).
And it had nothing to do with undermining any Bible truths.
And where does it state anything about the moon having craters or not in the Bible?
How could it, when one cannot seen them with a naked eye? Bible authors had no way of seeing the craters or strange "appendages" (as gailleo called unresolved Saturn's rings in his small telescope).
And again, that has nothing to do with Genesis 1-3 or the Bible in general.
The Church believed, however, that the sky above was the "heavens," an erroneous belief that comes straight from the Bible.
No, the heavens are 'above' you and when you die, if you are saved, you go up just as the Lord ascended into the heaven.
Since the Church maitained that only that which is pure/perfect can be in heaven, the 'logical' conclusion was that celestial bodies were also perfect anfd without "blemishes."
And once again, that has nothing to do with the Bible.
The Vatican officials were dealing with defending a RCC position, not a Biblical one
No, they were just making 'logical" conclusions based on Biblical assumptions.
No, they were coming to conclusions that had nothing to do with the Bible.
There is no real evidence for anything that contradicts the Genesis account of Creation.
And your definition of "real" is?
Evidence that cannot be disputed.
No evidence exists that proves that the Creation did not happen exactly the way God said it did in Genesis 1-3.
Once again, the RCC was not defending the Bible, but its own interpretation of it, one mixed with philosophic speculation.
Nope. Scientists you are not. That much is obvious. Tests can prove or disprove whether a scientific model is working or not.
Science creates working models not truthful models. A perfect example of one is the Ptolemaic navigational system. It was based on geocentric premises and it still works! But today we know its assumptions were wrong (as far as geocentricity is concerned).
Evidence shows that humans were not created exactly as the Genesis tells us. That doesn't mean that archeology and anthropology can tell us just how the humans were formed, or why for that matter.
The craters on the moon and the moon itself are undeniable facts. That doesn't mean we know how they were formed or why. We have theories, and some working models, but working models can be wrong. What we do know is that the moon is not a smooth, perfect sphere and that "up" is not where heave is.
We know that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, containes billions of stars, and today we also see billions of galaxies separated from our own. Based on their light and size and distance we can estimate that there are more visible stars in the Creation than grains of sand on all the beaches and in all the deserts on earth (27 hexatrillion is the estimated number), and this doesn't account for those too far for their light to have reached us yet!
So, God's Creation from the tiniest atom to the galactic expanse is beyond our comprehension. We must not stuff God into our little box even if our minds and languages can do no better than that. We must always remember that the Bible is a "working model" as well, at best, defined by our own finite reality.