Heavens to Betsy! That's a lot of posts in a short time.
Because it is indirectly addressed to me I'm going to quickly respond to your OP, kind sir, and then try and shuffle on through the rest of the discussion. We'll see if I have anything to contribute.
As the quote in your first post indicates, my gut feeling is that attitudes to heliocentrism and attitutes towards evolution are comparable and furthermore, that a comparison is instructive.
Fundamentally, both have been seen as challenges to recieved ideas of God's motives and his perceived
modus operandi.
With regards to the church's distaste for heliocentrism, it had been widely assumed until Copernicus that humanity's home, having been created by a god with big squishy feelings for us, was likely to be afforded the top spot in the celestial order. A contradiction of that assumption seemed initially like a threat to the foundations of the Christian faith, but instead just required a reinterpretation of the relevant sections of scripture and the church was good to go.
I can't see how the evidence for evolution is any less persuasive than the evidence for heliocentricity.
I think that there will at first be a period of resistance mirrored with the debate about the relation of the earth and the sun. Subsequently though, the beliefs accrued around the core of the Christian faith that make evolution seem unpalatable will be sloughed and replaced with new, compatible beliefs derived from revised interpretations of religious text. That's my hope anyway.
I don't see why God's contribution would be belittled in any way if it was just to make organic chemistry work in the first place. In truth, I don't see any "just" about it.
Its an embarrassing failure of empathy, but I remain unable to comprehend how literalists can find the stolid imaginings of nomadic barbarians to be more profound and inspiring than the incremental development of rational, methodical scientific enquiry by the best minds of the subsequent two-and-a-half thousand years.