Ad bethyada: The significance of the comet of 1577 was that, at that point, observational data could nail down the fact that it was not a sublunar phenomenon. Hence there was change in the heavens. (The prior view had been that comets were phenomena below the sphere of the moon and hence not really part of the heavens.) The key geometrical ideas to show this from observational data had been worked out by Tycho Brahe in De Nova Stella, a work about the nova of 1572.

Ad marlin wall: During his own lifetime, Copernicus did not get in trouble with the Church. Cardinal Schoenberg even wrote him a nice letter asking for a copy of his work on the motion of the earth. The Council of Trent was convened just after Copernicus’s death; that is when positions really began to harden.

Ad everyone: It is generally forgotten that the Inquisition was inclined to release Galileo with the mildest slap on the wrist, but the Pope personally intervened and insisted on a harsher sentence. The indispensable work on this is Maurice Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History.

By the way, Copernicus did not really discover anything new, certainly not by way of “observation”, he invented/modelled it (the mathematical data) in a new way. There is a difference. Don’t get me wrong, there was significant import to this shift, which however, did not seem to upset Copernicus or other supporters of his day. However, this import is philosophical , not “scientific” in the modern sense… even though Copernicus’ mathematical modelling required no physical belief change, it just made the model simpler, and a (very) little more accurate. Ptolemy’s data (ca 2nd C AD) was enough for Copernicus to do his mathematical gymnastics. Galileo discovered sort of something new.. such as imperfections in the surface fo the moon, which lent evidence against a “unchanging divine heavens”. Kepler discovered elliptical orbits, or rather postulated them, and then, by way of Tycho’s data and some very weird thought patterns (by modern standards only), found a way to support them.

As for the statement… “At any rate, Galileo and Copernicus opposed certain Aristotelian assumptions (mathematically perfect, earth-centered universe with heavenly bodies moving in perfect circles”, Only 1/3 of it is correct. Neither Galileo nor Copernicus could get away from mathematically perfect circular orbits (PLEASE READ Nicolai Copernici Torinensis De revolutionibus orbium coelestium – on the Revolutions of the Heavenly SPHERES), they only moved the center from the earth to the sun (no small feat). On philosophical and religious grounds, both Copernicus and Galileo OPPOSED elliptical orbits. Kepler promoted elliptical orbits, and went to Galileo for support, but did NOT get it, much to his disappointment. This only shows just how hard it was to break away from Aristotelian principles … and for good reason, they hold together so well, and at the same time, were so adaptable. In short, Copernicus was a churchman and mathematical astronomer, Galileo was a physicist (important works almost all in physical dynamics) and Kepler was a 16th/17th C. cosmologist, meaning , he combined alchemy, cosmology, and mathematical astronomy and synthesized them into a new way (truly new in all aspects for the first time) of looking at the heavens. The combined effort of these three great minds could finally pry astronomy and physics away from its Aristotelian moorings. Isaac Newton, well, we’ll save that for another time (in some sense he was the combination of these three , and then some).

It is also helpful and illustrative to examine what happened in the lives of Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and Johann Keppler (1571-1630).

Brahe was a very diligent observer and tireless worker and accumulated a massive data collection on stellar and planetary positions and movements. He hoped both to reconcile astronomy with Scriptural teaching as commonly understood (geocentric) and to remove the necessity of placing the stars far beyond the outermost planet as was required by the heliocentric scheme. His careful observations revealed significant problems with the geocentric theory and the theory of the closeness of the stars, but he died without changing his beliefs in the standard Church teaching of heliocentrism (there was some acceptance of heliocentricism in some parts of the church, and openness to it in other parts, but it was decidedly the minority view).

Upon Brahe’s death, Kepler obtained his data and in 1597 published a book (“The Cosmographic Mystery”) defending heliocentrism, and in 1609 published “New Astronomy” in which he rejecting traditional circles and epicycles in favour of their replacement with elliptical orbits. He was attacked by many church leaders. This is how Kepler responded:

“Astronomy discloses the causes of natural phenomena and takes within its purview the investigation of optical illusions. Much loftier subjects are treated by Holy Writ, which employs popular speech in order to be understood . . . Not even astronomers cultivate astronomy with the intention of altering popular speeds. Yet while it remains unchanged, we seek to open the doors of truth [T]his is all the more reason not to require divinely inspired Scripture to abandon the popular style of speech, weigh its words no the precision balance of natural science, confuse Gods simple people with unfamiliar and inappropriate utterances about matters which are beyond the comprehension of those will) are to he instructed, and thereby block their access to the far more elevated authentic goal of Scripture.

“In our days all the most outstanding philosophers and astronomers agree with Copernicus . . . Yet the authorities are cast aside by most educated people, whose knowledge is on a level not much higher than the uneducated. Acting by themselves and blinded by ignorance, first they condemn a discordant and unfamilar doctrine as false. After deciding that it must be completely rejected and destroyed, they look around for authorities, with whom they protect and arm themselves. On the other hand they would make an exception of these same authorities, sacred and secular alike … if they found them aligned on the side if the unconventional doctrine. They show this attitude in connection with, the book of Job, chapter 38, when anybody proves by means of it that the earth is flat, stretched to the tautness of a line, and resting on certain foundations, according to the literal meaning. (Epitome of Copernican Astronomy, 1618)

While Copernicus was running up against an Aristotelian world view, he was also opposed by the church on scriptural grounds. It wasnt just the Catholic church, but Protestants as well. Luther, Calvin and Melanthon all spoke out against Copernicus by citing the literal interpretation of the scriptures that spoke of the sun traveling around the earth. Luther pointed out the in Joshua, God told the sun to stand still, not the earth.

The scientific discoveries of Copernicus (and later Galileo) caused the church to eventually change its interpretaton of these scriptures.

Bethyada-

“In modern times the accepted dogma (Darwinism) is that which refuses to be challenged.”

As well as some hermeneutical approaches/interpretations found within segments of the church.

We disagree on some foundational ideas here so I will restrict myself to mention some minor issues.

A comet streaking through space in 1577 was another blow to the Aristotelian worldview.

I am not sure why you think this would be the case. Comets have been known about for millennia prior. There would have been an explanation.

I will add that the conflict was not particularly scientific at the time, Galileo’s lack of diplomacy to the Pope didn’t help things. This article is useful about the affair.

The ironic thing is that those who (falsely) claim this is science versus religion (note that Galileo was religious and believed in a young earth) miss the fact that their analogy is better described as an unpopular view (Galileo) pitted against the accepted dogma of the powers (church/state). In modern times the accepted dogma (Darwinism) is that which refuses to be challenged.

So did Al listen to all this and how did he respond?