Just because we’ve had several discussions about the nature of the Bruno case should not make you so eager to dismiss the Bruno case.
I don’t think you are going to win many points by saying:
“The Catholic Church did not burn Bruno alive because of his scientific views - - but because he was a religious heretic that had to be burned alive.” If you are big on arguing for vanity’s sake, you can go ahead and keep complaining about how people categorize the Bruno execution. But, I would suggest to you in all sincerity, the less you bring up Bruno the better off you will be… unless you just want to be argumentative.
I think we can (or should) take note that the Catholic Church has come a long way since 1600. Indeed, the Catholic Church should be a model for how all sincere denominations should handle the issue of Evolution; it may not be perfect, but it is far better than what we see from a number of Evangelical denominations.
As to Neil, you say he “loves to play the bait and switch”. I think anybody presenting dry theoretical information to an unsophisticated audience also loves the excitement that “bait and switch” can evoke. The question becomes, is the bait & switch a deceit or falsehood?
I myself have mentioned that it might have served the TV series well if it pointed out to the audience that since the time of Darwin, the pendulum within the Catholic Church has changed direction, while many denominations of Protestant evangelicals have got up on the big horse of science denialism.
Is there something you think Neil will present that you anticipate will be false?