In the article, the tiresome topic of Galileo vs. the Catholic Church is raised. It's being used as a trump card to halt discussion regarding evolution and Intelligent Design.
Without sounding grumpy, at least too much so, let me just point out that it wasn't the big G's science that the Church had a problem with, it was his philosophy. Now, the distinction might not sound like such a big deal, but science and philosophy are different branches of study, and the people brandishing the trump card know better. Science deals with things that can be studied and tested. Philosophy deals with reasoning based on principles.
There is a helpful discussion of the case between Galileo and the Catholic Church in Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton's book, The Soul of Science. They write that the Church's objection was "Galileo's attack on Aristotelian philosophy -- and all the metaphysical, spiritual, and social consequences they associated with it." The big deal is that "Aristotelian physics and cosmology ...[was] tied to an overall vision of moral and social life. If that tie were broken, they feared morality itself would be destroyed."
Because humans descended from apes, some Christians who are scientists are claiming, there wasn't an Adam and Eve, no Fall, etc. Now, I'm not clear on how they are going to square the problem of evil with their philosophy of science. I don't care about the age of the earth, but I do care about the issue of the Fall, because without clearly understanding that mankind transgressed the law of God -- and somewhere, someone (or two) did transgress them -- then it will be almost impossible to reconcile why we suffer, and why God sent His Son to redeem us.