That wasn't my point. The point is that what has been accepted as truth is sometimes rejected later on.
And that certainly happens. As we uncover more detail, it isn't unusual that we have to modify our previous theories.
Science is an ongoing project of better and better approximations.
Especially on the borders of knowledge, we find that initial views frequently have to be changed when new data is found. Not only does this happen, it is common and a desirable part of the process of science.
Next, each new viewpoint has to explain at least as much of the data as the old viewpoint. This is actually crucial. We don't go backwards. But we are always trying to incorporate new results into our explanations, changing the explanations if required.
But what this means is that the well-established results of the previous view are going to stick around in the places where they have been well tested, at least as an approximation.
As an example, Newton's theory of gravity and his laws of motion gave incredibly good explanations for the orbits of the planets, and the way things work on Earth. His work unified our ideas about the universe and those about the Earth.
In the later part of the 17th century, it was found that the calculations done by Newtonian physics on the newly discovered planet, Uranus, didn't quite fit the observations. There were two options: one was to discard or change the theory. The other was to see if the theory still works, but we need to add another contributor: another planet, for example. Both options were discussed. And, it was found that a new planet *does* exist, exactly where Newtonian calculations predicted. It is now called Neptune.
In the 19th century, a similar thing happened. The motion of the planet Mercury quite fit the calculations. Again, a new planet was proposed. it was even named (Vulcan). But no planet was found. Instead, Einstein came along and changed the theory of gravity, modifying it to a new viewpoint. And that new viewpoint gave the correct positions of Mercury.
So, while Newtonian theory is 'wrong', it is still a very, very good approximation. In fact, it is still good enough to use for launching probes to other planets. It is also easier to use than Einstein's. So, the 'wrong' is often used in practice because it is 'good enough'.
In the advance of science, well-established aspects of theories are seldom completely discarded. They are taken as simpler models that are less accurate, but still valid to some level. New results won't negate, for example, the fact that planets orbit the sun. New results won't negate the fact that the universe is expanding.
And new results won't negate the basic facts of evolution: the biological species change over time, leading to new species. Any better approximation will give these same results simply because those results are well established in the cases where they have been tested.
