Even if you are right in some points the argument is misleading ;-)
Science is definitely NOT a restaurant menu where you can chose what you want. Like the people who believe in “science will change the basic facts later so we can make fast intergalactic travel feasible”. Intergalactic travel will be feasible, but it won't take less that millions of years. That is a limit to a cow or a human as the “astronauts”, but not to a machine billions of times smarter than a cow or a human transporting human DNA and protein for later use. Intergalactic travel is not against the laws of physics, Start Trek is.
The truth is basic facts don't change. But scientist have misconceptions about things that are not established. When chemistry was established, scientists could be inclined to think “so atoms cannot be divided”. In fact they are, and that does not change the laws of chemistry at all. When nuclear physics were established, scientists could think “ok now I got it, protons and neutrons cannot be divided”. Wrong again, but nuclear physics is still ok. Same could be told about pre-relativist laws of motion (107 years after special relativity, it's about time to use the word “classical” for relativity), but the truth is Lorentz transformation confirms the laws of Newtonian physics, it just extends them to make them valid when v approaches c.
If someone was ill-intentioned enough to say scientists today believe in wimps, and the whole idea ends up to be as speculative as “aether”. The conclusion is not “science is wrong” but “as of 2012 observed baryonic matter did not add up to the amount required to explain galaxy formation, so scientist speculated about nonobserved, nonbaryonic matter.”
But my argument was more about technology than about science. Technology gives civilizations a military, civil engineering and travelling advantage that makes them the invader rather than the invaded.
