There are so many ways to answer this question. There will be many different opinions. In view of this, I would like to answer this question in a counter-intuitive way by referencing a historian of science, Thomas Kuhn. He is one of the most important intellectuals in the last 100 years according to many people. His book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has been hailed as a ground-breaking and vital contribution to the history of science.
The basic thesis of the book is that there are paradigm shifts in scientific communities. He actually coined the words, "paradigm shift." Some theories that seemed airtight and beyond a doubt true are discarded when there are what he calls, "anomalies." These anomalies create further study and a new paradigm emerges. This shows that science is not as objective as it claims to be. He gives many examples of this point.
In light of this, we can say that science changes as it develops. New theory replaces old ones. What seems so true in one epoch winds up being discarded. In a word, science is not as "objective" as it claims to be.