Science strives to explain things and make predictions. Usefulness is the main criterion for determining whether an idea will be adopted. For example, I am sure you learned something in your high school science classes about Newton's law of universal gravitation. It still holds a place in science, even though it is WRONG. That's because it's useful. Just ask NASA; they used it to guide the Apollo crafts to the moon. Admittedly, true and useful often do coincide, but usefulness in explaining and prediction is the key criterion for a scientific idea.
"Science strives to explain things and make predictions."
Given.
"Usefulness is the main criterion for determining whether an idea will be adopted. "
Also given.
I can continue on your post as such.
My only point is that though science uses explanations that are useful, it should recognize it's history for dumping faulty (though useful) reasons.
Alchemy is an example. The idea that something must be given to form something else is still used. But the idea of turning lead to gold (short of stripping protons) is given up.
Though science does look for useful answers, if a different "useful" explanation is found, it is also to be considered. They may both serve the same end, but one may be true, while the other is not.
As a loose example: Bob sees the Sun get blotted out. He considers this a "magical event" that takes place every set amount of time. He inditifies the cycle and records it. He still believes its magic though. (a useful thought)
Then John tells Bob "You know, the Moon is about the right size to cover the sun. Maybe the Moon is placed between us and the sun?" (useful)
This later is considered in a case which identifies the Moon as actually traveling AROUND the planet, regardless of time of day. (useful, and true)