I’d never vote for an anti-science candidate, and I think most conservatives would cock a snoot at someone who was. The defining issue has to be national security, but that doesn’t mean Pat Robertson wins.
The terms *evolution* and *science* are not interchangeable. Nobody is talking about an anti-science candidate, just someone who doesn’t agree with the currently accepted *scientific* interpretation of the fossil record. And for that matter, there are many creationists who recognize variation within species but don’t acknowledge speciation. So they’re *anti-science*, too? IOW, only those who completely accept the TOE right down the concept of speciation, are not *anti-science*.
Disagreeing with the conclusions drawn about the fossil record is not being anti-science. That’s just a tactic to try to discredit people; liberal style name calling to produce hysteria.
*Oh look, he doesn’t accept all the conclusion of the ToE lock step. He must be an anti-science, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, Neanderthal who wants to impose his backwards religious dogma on all mankind and drag us back to the Dark Ages*.
So do scientists (or FRevos) say that about every theory that someone disagrees with or just evolution? What about Relativity? String Theory? Dark Matter? Singularity? The Big Bang? Are people who disagree with those theories also classified as anti-science? Why not?