The general thrust of Mangani's statement is accurate.

I would like to first make two points of clarification. First, the purpose of this debate is to determine whether or not the Bible, standing on its own, contradicts science, and not, rather, whether or not the early or even later Church opposed or opposes science. Second, the general thrust of Tataris' argument is that the Bible's tenants, as far as inquiry are concerned, are contradictory to the general tenants of science, i.e. "curiosity, empiricism, and progress." Tataris offers up a number of cases in the Bible where empiricism is replaced in favor of "blind faith." He cites this as evidence that the Bible is, in itself, a contradiction to the tenants of science (see above). However, I think this is a hasty conclusion. It is true that the Bible is full of apparently anti-scientific rhetoric such as someone being struck dumb for doubting, or even being turned into a pillar of salt just for being curious and looking at destruction (and who among us does not stop to look at an accident). However, the problem with immediately concluding that this is in contradiction with science, is that one fails to first examine what the intent of the Bible is. The intent of the Bible is to provide 'evidence' of the existence, love, patience, wrath, etc. of a monotheistic deity. Therefore, when someone is struck dumb for doubting the plan of God, it should not be viewed as an attempt to dissuade everyone at all times to not be curious, rather, it should be seen as 'spiritual evidence' in the ignorant eyes of the ancients. To more clearly elucidate my point, it is essential that one understands the distinction between mythos and logos. Mythos is the 'knowledge' that is associated with those things we cannot explain, in principle or not, with empiricism. Logos is that knowledge that is concerned with the physical universe, and, more specifically, with those things that concern people on a daily basis. The distinction between mythos and logos is important because 1) the ancients typically understood the distinction, and 2) The intent of Biblical writings is to increase our knowledge of mythos, not logos. Modern fundamentalists typically collapse this distinction, and, therefore, conclude that science is a threat to religion. On the other side, a modern empiricist or metaphysical naturalist will deny the importance or even the sense of the claims of mythos. However, neither side's viewpoint changes the fact that the Bible, by and large, is not concerned with logos, but, rather, with mythos. Those claims that it does put forward as hypotheses, i.e. the shape of the earth, its relation to the heavens, etc. are merely false and hastily drawn conclusions based on the primitive understanding of the time, but are not contradictory to science because if they were then all false hypothesis from Aristotle to Galileo would be contradictory to science. And those claims that seem to be opposed to the ethics of science are not properly seen as being in opposition to science because they do not seek to overturn curiosity or empiricism, but rather, to provide evidence for the existence or intent of a non-physical being within a physical and limited setting. Biblical writings were never intended to be taken as truths in the field of logos, but rather, truths in the knowledge sector of mythos, and it is the fault of the reader, not the fault of the book itself, that leads one to think that the Bible stands in contradiction to science. It may be a bit of a hasty conclusion to state that at no point did the writers of the Bible despise and try to discredit the proponents of empirical observation. However, I think it more likely that the type of knowledge that the Bible typically attempts to expand is not, in principle, related to the knowledge gained through scientific inquiry. One might not accept this knowledge as sensible or useful knowledge (I know I do not), but that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Bible contradicts the tenants of science because there is a clear demarcation of knowledge, and any overlap present can be put to severe scientific scrutiny at will. To shed light on the possible reasons for the Church denying or coming into conflict with scientific inquiry is that the Church had a vested interest in making sure that the Bible's stories were credible. If it turned out that the world was round, then one would have to wonder how someone could stand on a mountain and see the whole world. The Church had a vested interest in making itself the only legitimate source of knowledge because it allowed them to always be consulted by the powers of the world. However, once one relinquishes the need for political sway and social dominance, it becomes clear that the Bible does not inherently contradict modern science, but, rather, is an attempt to understand the intent of the world around oneself (even if that intent does not exist), and to provide evidence for the existence of that mind that is necessary for intent, i.e. God within the physical understanding of the world at the time.