Darwin himself waited many years before publishing Origin: obviously, even in the mid-19th century...scientists *still* felt uncomfortable about publishing anything that might contradict conventional religious "wisdom".

To be fair, this probably had more to do with Lyell's advice that his argument would carry more weight if he had experience in taxonomy (he published several monographs on barnacles in the interim), his desire to put the force of all available evidence behind his theory, a succession of experiments involving, among other things, pigeon breeding, and the fact that he could only work a few hours per day due to chronic illness.

I have posted the below Catholic Canon before on another thread but I reckon it's very relevant to the discussion. I actually really dislike posting this kind of garbage but it needs to be brought out into the daylight. It was mentioned in St Peter's Bascillica in 1998 by Pope JP II. It goes to show us this type of Inquisition mentality is alive and well. It's all so damn pathetically sad that science potentially still has this kind of enemy if we dare to have freethought and contradict their teaching.

'In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty'

Roman Catholic Canon 1436

I wonder what they mean by an appropriate penalty.

The mere fact that the Index Librorum Prohibitorum existed is a stain on the record of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, let alone that it existed for centuries, and was not abolished until my lifetime. Pope Benedict XVI is quite the medievalist though; so perhaps it will be coming back soon, just as indulgences did.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church has long maintained a doctrine of infallibility for the Pope. Catholics are quick to reassure you that this applies only to matters of faith and morals, etc. This does not get the Holy Roman Catholic Church off the hook in the Galileo affair, however, as the Papacy declared that it was a matter of faith and morals.
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White

In spite of all that has been said by these apologists, there no longer remains the shadow of a doubt that the papal infallibility was committed fully and irrevocably against the double revolution of the earth. As the documents of Galileo's trial now published show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed on with all his might the condemnation of Galileo and of the works of Copernicus and of all others teaching the motion of the earth around its own axis and around the sun. So, too, in the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, and in all the proceedings which led up to it and which followed it, Urban VIII was the central figure. Without his sanction no action could have been taken.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the Copernican theory then; but this came later, In 1664 Alexander VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and ``all books which affirm the motion of the earth'' a papal bull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful. This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally, decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of ``all books teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun.''
...
And again, what Galileo was made, by express order of Pope Urban, and by the action of the Inquisition under threat of torture, to abjure in 1633, was ``the error and heresy of the movement of the earth.''

a libertarian Catholic think tank

Is it really possible to be a libertarian and a Catholic simultaneously?

Is it really possible to be a libertarian and a Catholic while being able to think?

a libertarian Catholic think tank

Is it really possible to be a libertarian and a Catholic simultaneously?

Richards spectacularly misses the point here - or ignores it - and even tries to justify the Vatican's behaviour!

As usual, I'm staggered by the ignorance, apologetics and selective reading of history on display in Strobel's "case".

Thanks for doing this Ebon, Sagan knows I couldn't read this book without hurling it across the room.