A novice, I do not feel prepared yet to read Aristotle; but please tell me if his primary sources answer my question.
Source: p 75, Philosophy ; A Very Short Introduction (2002) by Edward Craig.
For an Aristotelian, the baser kinds of matter are earth and water. Unlike the other two kinds, air and fire, they naturally strive towards the centre of the universe. So a spherical mass of earth and water has formed there, and this is the Earth. (However often you hear it said, it just isn’t true that the medievals believed that the Earth was flat!) But the Moon, the Sun, the planets and stars don’t consist of this sort of matter at all, not even air and fire. They are made of the Quintessence – the fifth element – incorruptible and unchanging, and all they do is go round in circles, eternally, in godlike serenity. Now the new astronomy wants to blow this distinction away: however things may look and feel from where we are standing, the Earth is itself in the heavens; and the heavenly bodies are not utterly set apart, but are as much proper objects of scientific investigation as the Earth itself. On top of which the new scientists want to replace explanations couched in terms of natures and goals with talk of the particles of which things are composed, and of mechanical causation governed by mathematical laws.
Is the bolded directed at Aristotelianism? To wit, does the bolded mean that Aristotelianism explains physicality only in terms of natures and teloi?
Why did (and do?) Aristotelians really reject science? The bolded implies conflict and hostility between Aristotelianism and 'the new scientists', but though I have not read Aristotle, I would expect Aristotelians as intelligent and rational, and not stupid or obstinate.