Nice try at sliding out. You appear to think that science is failing in its "duty" to provide truth, in the quest for "usefulness". (Either that or the entire screed you posted was a wordy irrelevance). So please explain how we should try and identify what is true, rather than what is useful. Science pursues what is useful on the assumption that "truth" and "usefulness" amount to the same thing. If that assumption is wrong explain the better methodology that would arrive at truth, rather than usefulness.
Hmmm, that's rather strong. I'd put it differently. Science pursues useful knowledge rather than truth because the latter is unknowable in any practical way (perhaps it is even unknowable in principle). OTOH, history makes clear that the methods of modern science do produce useful and reliable knowledge about the world.
No, the Darwinists that have taken the theory to its ultimate logical conclusion have decided that there is no such thing as "truth". Do I believe in absolute truths? Absolutely.
Science pursues what is useful on the assumption that "truth" and "usefulness" amount to the same thing.
Again, the Darwinisits described don't believe in absolute truths, only "usefulness".
Wrong. Science pursues (1) what scientists are interested in and (2) that which is funded or that which they can sneak into the research time (or fund themselves).
Funding/government agencies may fund that which they think is useful (and may expect results), but I have yet to meet a scientist pursuing some nebulous "truth."
The ones I have met are usually trying to "just figger something out."
I have heard "Oops, gotta go. Bye!" more times that I can count.
I can imagine what they are really thinking: "Lemme alone, I almost got it here! Another year should do it!"
I suspect both "truth" and "usefulness" are by-products of the inquisitive mind.