You can still have a foundation in secular humanism and be full of shit. None of what you said means that Star trek isn't science fantasy. Sure the crew might use their brains to solve a temporal anomaly, but temporal anomalies as depicted in trek are total, fantastical, nonsense.I understand - and agree - that Trek isn't hard sci-fi. I also read a lot of classic sci-fi growing up because my mother was a fan as well - Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Pohl, Niven, etc. I understand what was within the normal range of science fiction at the time. Gene wasn't going to use Mission of Gravity or something as a guide to how rigorous Trek should've been. So like, I know that Joseph W. Campbell was into the idea of psychic powers, and the government was doing real research into them at the time, so ESP was not fantasy-coded, but something found in fairly rigorous sci-fi.
By the standards of late 1950s/early 1960s sci-fi, TOS seems...middle of the pack? It's not rigorous sci-fi, but it's not quite pulp either.
Braga was behind Genesis and Threshold. The former shows DNA as a plot device to allow for "de-evolving" - a concept that makes no sense, and the internal rules are even broken due to rule of cool (Barclay as a spider? Why not?). The latter seems to imply that the evolution of humanity is going in a fixed direction. Braga has said in interviews he was influenced by the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould that things don't have to evolve to be more complex, but evolution is shaped by the environment, so the idea that you can just spin the clock forward millions of years is just rocks in head stupid.
DS9 wisely made the decision to try and avoid technobabble once it got to its later seasons. Some of the stuff with the Pah-wraiths and the like got a little too close to fantasy to me, but I appreciated that in general their response to the convoluted nonsensical underpinnings to Trek science and technology was just to mostly avoid it.
No. Star Wars is science fantasy. That's the series with space wizards, laser swords, noble households, destiny, good and evil, etc. It's just a bunch of classic fantasy tropes with a sheen of tech on it.
Star Trek has very dodgy science, but it's mostly written as sci-fi. You have a crew of competent professionals who investigate a problem and troubleshoot a solution. There are rational explanations to things that happen, even if the characters don't get all the answers. Secular humanism is foundational to its ethos. As David Brin noted in this 1999 article:
Star wars and star trek are two sides of the same coin. The difference is that one took itself way too seriously between 1987 and 2004.


