doma,
corrupt science isn't science. its corruption.
science is "the study and knowledge of the physical world and its behavior that is based on experiments and facts that can be proved, and is organized into a system."
whatever science is, it isn't whatever scientists wish it to be. corrupt scientists don't create science.
your definition seems to assume science is a fixed body of knowledge resistant to new theories.
that ain't what it is. it's a system of changing hypotheses that bubble out of and are consistent with the information that is available at any time. as new facts appear, so the hypotheses change. at any point in time, the best available theories have priority, but that isn't to say they will not be superceded.
if a hypothesis survives every test anyone can throw at it, then folks call it a law. and that suggests a more permanent position within science. but even a law can be undone if it turns out someone can find some facts to falsify it.
you believe in a hypothesis about the universe. it isn't proven. nor is it accepted widely. but it is a speculation that some folks have had. cool. but the way you want to assert that it is true in the absence of a full range of testing is not science. it's an assertion of your belief.
i have no problem that you have a theory. you are welcome to share it.
but just because you wish to call science a dogma does not make it so. same as the fact you discovered an image of a rock footprint in granite doesn't mean there were giants on the face of the earth.
| 