I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...
I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...
Nonsense.
If "proof" was all the Church was looking for, they would have cleared Galileo once the evidence was presented.
Tell me again how long it took the Church to admit that they were wrong and Galileo was right?
It wasn't about evidence. It was about Church dogma first and foremost.
Fortunately, the Church is no longer being run by anti-Science zealots. That's why the Church accepts evolution.