Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam

<sigh>
Your thinking is so thoroughly screwed up that there is no point in
reposting the stuff you have above, most of which is just confused
repetition of what you have posted before. Instead, what I will try to
do is take you step-by-step, #101 style, through the various issues.

First of all, as I have repeatedly told you, there's no such thing as
a "formal heresy"; what happens is a *formal process* where
theologians are appointed to study an issue, they make a
recommendation and the Pope finally declares it as a heresy. This is
analogous to our modern legal procedures. For example, a murder is
committed and a suspect questioned; if enough evidence is found to
prosecute them, then the suspect is formally charged, a process known
as indictment, they then go through a formal trial; a jury considers
the evidence and reaches a verdict; a judge then formally declares the
verdict and the sentence. The various stages of that process are
*formal* but there is no such thing as a "formal murder", the word
formal applies only to the process.

A heresy cannot be declared without a formal declaration from the
Pope. To claim that it could be done without the Pope's approval would
be analogous to the judge absenting himself from a murder trial and
the jury on their own finding the suspect guilty and sending him to
jail or for execution; to suggest that it could just be "made" by what
was declared in Trent would be analogous to a person being found
guilty and sent to jail or for execution without a formal trial just
because the law says that murder is a crime.

Galileo actually went through two investigations. The first one was in
1616 and that was where the Qualifiers (the theologians appointed to
investigate it) studied the claims made about heliocentrism and they
declared " … this proposition (heliocentrism) is foolish and absurd in
philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in
many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal
meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and
understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." (XIX,
321; trans. by Finocchiaro 1989, 146). 

There is a lot of argument among scholars about Finocchiaro's
translation of that statement into English from the original Latin but
it is more to do with the punctuation than the choice of words. That
is likely because none of the scholars think for one minute that the
statement somehow created a heresy, they are all familiar with the
necessity of a process leading to a formal declaration by the Pope. If
you want to read more about this, you can get it here:

https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/139212-2/

The authors themselves did not regard it as absolutely final and
irreversible. It was based on the problem of an *unproven* hypothesis
being used to say that scripture was wrong and Cardinal Bellarmine,
the  most influential member of the Sacred College, stated that:

" I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does
not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will
be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the
passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should
rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be
false which is demonstrated. "

That most important factor is the absence of a follow-on procedure and
declaration by the Pope; he  never even signed the decree which meant
the decree, despite stating that heliocentrism was "formally
heretical", could not be regarded as a formal declaration of heresy.
The decree itself was stuck into  a file and basically forgotten about
for 17 years until it was revived at Galileo's 1633 trial; during that
time, Galileo and others completely ignored it and continued to
investigate and openly promote heliocentrism which they could not have
done it was regarded as heresy.

The decree did get revived at the 1633 trial but as all the
researchers I have cited point out, the 1616 decree was a red herring
as heliocentrism had never been formally declared as a heresy. You
keep whining about me snipping out the stuff you keep posting from the
charge against Galileo and the sentence imposed upon them but nobody
is disputing the charges and the verdict of being guilty of heresy.
What is important is that they were based on the falsehood that
heliocentrism was a heresy; it wasn't. That is whey I describe it as a
trumped -up charge and a show trial; as Augustus De Morgan put it:

"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."

Those involved with the trial would have known this themselves and
that is likely why they went for the "Suspected of heresy" charge
rather than straightforward heresy;  "suspected" heresy is basically
somebody doing something heretical without being aware that it was
heretical - an early example of weasel words being used.

For some reason, you seem to struggle to understand the  point that
the charges against Galileo and the sentence passed had no valid
foundation. You seem to think in particular that when the researchers
I have cited quote the charge and the sentence, that they are somehow
validating the charge of heresy when they are only quoting them to
show that they are wrong.  I don't know what else I can say to improve
your understanding.