[Lurker]

First, he was teaching Copernican theory as fact, rather than hypothesis, when there really was no scientific fact to back it up.

Wrong. There were mountains of scientific evidence to back up Copernicus.

Second, the popularity of his writings brought an essentially philosophical discussion into the public arena, requiring some sort of church response.

Can't have scientific matters uncommented on by a bunch of corrupt Church officials. That simply wouldn't do.

Third, by elevating scientific conjecture to a theological level, he was raising the stakes enormously

Where to start on this. It wasn't conjecture. Copernicus proved his 'theory' with solid mathematics. Second the only people raising the stakes were Church officials.

This article is bunk.

L

[Mad Dawg]

Wrong. There were mountains of scientific evidence to back up Copernicus.

Like what? There was increasing evidence to weaken Ptolemy. Mountains on the moon, Jupiter with moons, and phases of Venus. But to SHOW a moving earth, you gotta have parallax, I think.

Copernicus PROVED the planets move with regular circular motion? Nope.

[bdeaner]

It’s not enough to have mathematical evidence for one model in science. One must also disconfirm other models, as Karl Popper has noted. Neither Copernicus nor Galileo had accomplish that as yet.