The science of Star Wars?

I've always thought Star Wars, in terms of its technical aspects, to just be a whimsical flight of fancy. Such that when anyone talks about deconstructing the "science" of Star Wars I just find it silly. 

Do I have a prejudice against Star Wars?  I consider Star Trek to be much more scientifically accurate. However, am I just buying in to one religion and rejecting another?

Pat tells me that fer crissake, Star Trek was created with NASA consultants and other scientific consultants on board, brought on by Roddenberry, at the beginning of the series.  So perhaps I am too hard on myself for rejecting Star Wars on this front and propping up Star Trek. It's always been hard for me to have a conviction. I'm always second-guessing myself and fact-checking myself, going, "am I sure on this?" when I shouldn't. When it comes to religions, I'm always making sure I'm not totally delusional and making sure I'm not just blindly following one. 

But yes, when it comes to Star Wars, all this stuff - the light sabers that go yay high, to quote Kevin Smith & _Clerks_ (the ABC cartoon), the Millenium Falcon that makes that powerful kind of hybrid jet-engine / aircraft carrier sound, the pretty silver-blue-white colors and iceberg patterns of travelling through hyperspace, x-wings that can turn and bank like airborne WWII planes without any bank of on-board multi-directional thrusters (see Battlestar Galactica 2003's Vipers for an example of this) - then yes, all of this stuff *is* pure flights of fantasy and we best not forget it. Star Wars is the fantasy, Star Trek is the science fiction.