What's wrong with scientific plausability?
Other than the fact that Star Trek has all the scientific plausibility of a comic book?
Which, actually, is a pretty apt comparison. Peter Parker gets spider powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider; Reginald Barclay gets spider powers (and the entire crew "de-evolves") after being injected with a technobabble vaccine. Really, Star Trek is one cosmic ray storm or one homicidal demigod away from a Fantastic Four crossover.
But I still don't get to resistance to actual science.
There's no RESISTANCE to it at all. Writers use science -- or at least, a reasonable facsimile -- as convenient plot devices and scene dressing. But Star Trek is not and has never been hard science fiction; its writers are not actual scientists, its background science is not remarkably (or in some cases even slightly) realistic.
Is STXI in any way less realistic than, say, Wrath of Khan, with its inexplicable lighting storm/fogbank nebula and the McGuffin incarnate that IS the Genesis device? I don't think so, personally, and yet Wrath of Khan, along with STXI, is widely regarded as one of the best of all of the Trek movies.