Thank you for your patient words.

You are right that I'm not yet fully accustomed to the culture of this site, and I've seen some valid concerns about the formulation of some of my statements. Had I written this essay now after seeing some of the comments, I would have been probably somewhat less defensive. (Actually, most of my defensiveness comes from an observation that whenever theism came up in a main article, easily defeatable young earth creationists were prominently featured. Maybe it's just a sampling problem, and by reading more articles here on that topic, it would seem less prominent) Nevertheless, you raise a valid point that my disclaimers were overdone.

Also, I should have mentioned some of the merits of Galilei in the article, instead of just acknowledging them in the comments, otherwise some might think that my goal was to flame against him. My main point was to show an example where seemingly rational scientific proofs can lead us astray, and to show a well-spread bias in popular history: upon these two pillars was my essay built. I should have striven to write it in a tone of a journal article, but as the topic was quite provocative knowing the ideological backgrounds of many readers, I went with a more provocative, sensationalist tone. Maybe I overdid it a little.

Is it a custom here to make such adjustments to an existing essay, or would people think that I did the changes to make their criticisms look unjustified?

Thanks again for the feedback.