quote - The latest Battlestar Galactica was a descendant of Star Trek, particularly TNG and DS9. A lot of us ended up there. The knowledge that we gained from Star Trek went into Galactica. And it affected the stories as well, because the stories Ron wanted to tell on TNG, that he really couldn’t because people get along in Starfleet, he could tell on BSG. Ron wanted to have people at each other’s throats, and that’s what he did. But Star Trek and BSG, they’re very, very related. There’s almost a distinct lineage from the golden age of Star Trek television to Battlestar Galactica. - unquote
Ronald D. Moore's sham take on "Battlestar Galactica" was indeed a "sham take" all along. Moore's series shouldn't have been called "Battlestar Galactica", it should have been called "Star Trek Sequel Series #4."
Universal Studios / SyFy Channel didn't hire Ronald D. Moore to revive "Battlestar Galactica" in 2003. They didn't even hire Moore to revive "Battlestar Galactica" in a radical way. Universal Studios / SyFy Channel hired Ronald D. Moore to make them a "Star Trek Sequel Series." Consisting of ingredients he couldn't apply to "Star Trek - The Next Generation" and "Deep Space Nine" because of conflicting canon.
"Star Trek" was / is the only thing Ronald D. Moore knows how to do, and that is exactly what he did for Universal Studios / SyFy Channel.
As of December 2011..."Battlestar Galactica" still has not been revived.