My point is that while, yes, you're right, the church has acted against progress, the church is also the institution that has safeguarded progress when "we" (th

My point is that while, yes, you're right, the church has acted against progress, the church is also the institution that has safeguarded progress when "we" (the general population, or the prevailing political group) wanted to destroy it. The large problem for science is that public opinion turns. And ... it turns against science, sometimes with catastrophic results. You can see it turn even today. I would say the tolerance we currently have for "science for the sake of science" is much reduced from what it was in the 90s. Is it so hard to imagine that public opinion might turn further, all the way into "we must destroy evil scientists". I would even say that I'm seeing that in some cases when it comes to genetic research (oh my god ! an artificial gene might get loose ! ...), nuclear/physics research (what about radiation ? What about waste ? Won't the LHC blow up the earth ?). Etc. When it comes to the church the thing is, one of these actions was utterly critical for progress to exist in the first place. One slightly delayed very specific parts of progress. One of these is an existential issue for our civilization and culture. The other is a detail. I would even argue that people might consider there may have been other factors. Galileo, for instance, was a dangerous and cruel nutcase, and not at all important to geocentrism. You might also consider that the true discoverers and advocates against the Ptolemaic model were very much part of the church, funded by the church, and devoted to the church, and published papers and books against the Ptoleamic model before, during and after the events related to Galileo.