Right and wrong are also poor terms to describe the state of science over time, since they are absolute terms, when the correctness is usually fuzzier.
And in order for a new theory to be "right" and the old one to be "wrong", the new theory has to be able to explain ALL the phenomenon that the old one did.
Newton wasn't right, but he was right enough that we can still use Newton to explore the solar system. Darwin wasn't "right", but new theories account for all Darwin's observations. New theories usually subsume old ones rather than discarding old ones completely for a completely different basic understanding; especially these days with far more data and research.
Asimov wrote a good essay on this:
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscie...ityofwrong.htm