There seems to be a mixture of folklore and knowledge in this post that is detrimental to bringing clarity to the apparent conflict between science and religion.
First, theology is a science. If one disagrees then either they misunderstand the meaning of the term science or religion or theology, let alone spirituality.
Then there is the folklore. So pervasive is the folklore that even a recent pope apologized for the poor treatment of Galileo and historians everywhere cringed. His ideas were condemned as a theory. At the time a theory had to have sufficient proof and he didn't have it. Once it was declared that his ideas couldn't be taught as a theory the universities immediately complied and properly taught them as a hypothesis. Galileo was also a vicious wit and was using his status in having disruptive fun. More interested in embarrassing opponents than in dialogue. There is much more to the story but that isn't the subject here. BTW Galileo is now known to have been wrong.
Good scientist seek the truth. They try to explain their subject all the while looking for evidence that their explanations do not adequately treat the matter. This then is an opportunity to refine their science - their explanations of the subject matter. All of the sciences have progressed over time or they are not science - just fossilized concepts. One shouldn't condemn modern chemist just because at one time many chemist believed in an ether permeating all space but could not be seen or measured. Likewise, a modern theologian should not be condemned because predecessors held notions that we now know are silly.
There was a time when it was a real struggle for a theologian to separate what we now call the hard sciences from the "hand of God". That is now not the case and to cite 500 year old examples to bolster a point of view is just poor logic or devious.
There are religious people who cling to very outmoded theological concepts. One should never evaluate a philosophy in terms of its adherents. This advice is easily understood in observing the customs of immigrants living far from their native land. The immigrants fossilize the customs and over time even those in their native land do not recognize the words or customs since the homeland tends to be dynamic.
People of a religion are rarely in tune with the underlying theology. The two are normally separated by long periods of time. Religions are a cultural expression of beliefs. Meaning that the mode of expression is dominated by the culture, not the theology. Religions, by definition, will therefore oppose change just as any culture opposes change. This opposition is not driven from the top even though it is reflected at the top.
For the above reasons I think the cork and bottle opener analogy is deeply flawed although very appealing because it knits together so many biases.
It is appealing, and simplistic, to say that "once you oppose change..." while failing to recognize the nonsense of the logic. People who readily adopt change for the sake of changing are also likely to be detached in their philosophy from the realities of the world. Recall the hippies?
| 
