[StJacques]

"As I suggested, I think this is a matter of viewpoint. If you are willing to put someone in jail because his scientific theory contradicts yours, you can certainly claim your's isn't a scientific theory you've "endorsed", but it sure looks like a scientific theory you've "endorsed" to the casual observer."

Well my viewpoint is that the charge against Galileo was heresy, which is a religious offense, not a scientific one.

This was the pronouncement of sentence:

". . . We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture. . . "

Maybe you read that differently than I do, but it is pretty clear to me that "contrary to the Holy Scripture" makes evident that the Catholic Church considered Galileo's crime a religious one.

[donh]

Yea, well, I could call my theory a "rumpelstiltskin" if I wanted to, but, no matter how insistent I am that my theory is really, really a "rumplestiltskin", if it an alternative to a fairly well-known and important scientific theory about the universe, than, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's an alternative theory about the nature of the universe--which is pretty much what a scientific theory is, last time I checked.