I think this is substantially overstated. Copernicus didn't keep his mouth
shut. (I'm thinking of On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres; perhaps
you're thinking of something else, something that he did suppress?) Galileo
didn't really get in trouble for considering or publishing his -theories-
per se, but primarily because of his seeming eagerness to antagonize
powerful -enemies- (whom he deemed fools, though some were more politically
skilled than he) in the process. What the RC church did to Galileo was
still wrong, obviously. But it's important to understand what the
underlying issues were -- "science versus religion" is appealing to some,
but is -quite- oversimplified, I think, along a number of axes. That
simplistically defines -part- of it (better: "science v. literalistic
biblicism and Aristotelian philosophy"), but not -all- of it, nor even the
most important part of it.
Also, remember that Galileo was still a Christian. He was also a scientist,
unlike most of his enemies.
> The most Denton or Behe have to look forward to is refutation. I have a
> feeling either of them would prefer the stake.
>
I'm not sure I understand this one.