or Hinduism and Science. This would provide a splendid contrast with critiques of those examples, and would help explain to readers why the conflict thesis is no longer accepted by (Western?) scholars. Within a single generation all astronomers accepted the Heliocentric model (from Kepler onwards to Newton, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace even though further proof would come later. What if it were cut to something like "because of White's impressive documentation." (ellipses would be put in the article; I'm not trying to be deceptive on this talk page)? Not to do so would, IMO, make the article irrelevant. They interpreted things differently back then so to speak of a "scientific perspective" is quite an issue.
Mandatory first question: Do you regard creation science as actual science? This notion is maintained in the "popular view" because there is no sustainable argument against.
The Conflict of Society, Benefits of the ASEAN Investment Agreement, The Concept of Conflict in Modern Drama Plays,
But if it still has modern adherents, who are these people if not scholars? Clossius 05:15, (UTC) Going back to Adrian Baker's comments, I agree that the explanation of the conflict thesis itself does need to be expanded. Confederates are justified in standing by one another; but I do not think that you are justified in saying that "the point of contention is as to what constitutes religion." So far from there being contention on that point, there is really no important difference. I will try a bottom up approach and change the lead at the end. Later on of course many adopted the Copernican view, but it was not well established or decisive at the time of Galileo - which is the time period we are talking about.