You never attempted to prove your claims.
ECO is correct that I've been accused of those things and yet no one has provided any evidence to back that up.
I am not "anti-science", or a "science-denier", and "science-hater". I have my degree in science and had planned on that since grade school. Science is a wonderful TOOL to be used for the betterment of mankind, but just because one doesn't blindly toe the party line on certain issues doesn't make one a science hater.
Do you agree with every single pronouncement uttered by the scientific community? What about areas where the scientific community is divided? Should we declare you a science hater simply because you might not take the officially decreed position?
What I *hate* is the abuse of science. The ridicule and demeaning of people because they dare to question the conclusions drawn on a certain subject; calling them *cretards* and *IDiots* as so frequently happens over at DC and used to happen here. I *hate* the slurs against the intelligence of those who do not agree simply for that reason alone. I *hate* the misuse of science as a political tool to try to sway people's party affiliations because of their certain views on one theory in one branch of science.
I agree, as do most scientists. Science should be as apolitical as possible.
However, the question of Evolution does not concern just one theory in one branch of science nor do IDists and YECs limit their objections to one field of science. Evolution draws on a a wide variety of disciplines from Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geology, Geophysics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and a number of others on top of the expected Biology, Genomics, Archeology, Anthropology, Paleontology and so on.
If you believe in a 6000 year old Earth then you deny the basis for much of those mentioned sciences. Just examine what a change in radiometrics would do to Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geology and Geophysics. Then consider what those changes, in turn, would do to Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Believing in a 6000 year old Earth does not just affect Philosophical Naturalism but the results of Methodological Naturalism in many arenas. This sounds like most of science, as well as the methods used, are being rejected.