I far prefer its humanist bent to the handwavium pseudo-tech BS of the week so common to Star Trek. Technology was almost never front-and-centre in BSG, rather it was the characters who solved the problems.
I'd agree. The best science fiction tries to incorporate accurate science but doesn't feel the need to sacrifice being emotive and well-written fiction at the same time.
It's exactly the same reason I like the early
Foundation series by Isaac Asimov - yes, there's 'future science', but it's the backdrop to the story and it's only really examined in minute detail where it really becomes critical to the plot (not very often).
The comment that "because the science is so believable it gives the cylons even more impact" is also true. It's a common principle in horror movies too - when something is familiar, or understandable, it makes the unknown that much more terrifying/shocking/impressive.
The same thing works in traveller, B5 and similar SF - when a universe uses 'recognisable' technology (armour plate, reaction engines, missiles, etc) then the ones who don't stand out even more. It's part of what made the Shadows instantly seem both utterly alien and scarily advanced - no armour, just energy 'splashing' over their skin, no jump engines, no engines at all.....
We're used to shields and engines without a visible exhaust from Star Trek, yet because the Shadows break the rules of their own universe, it startles you for a moment.
and wrote the technobabble in lolcat macros for the <2000 - word vocabulary Nuspeek generation.
That was probably more due to trying to capture the setting properly. Warship crews and dockside technicians have spoken in shorthand, acronyms and other incomprehensible subspecies of English since long before the birth of the txt msg.