Of course not. But I was not speaking of a single sample (although I used one as a specific instructive example), I've spoken with literally hundreds of anti-evolutionists through the past several decades. I have a good overview of the ranges and types of their beliefs.
A dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance is an anti-scientific stance -- it's the mark of a person who allows his faith-based (not necessarily religious) beliefs to override his ability to accept (and to outright deny) experimental findings and well-established evidence.
Do you have a source for this allegation.
Absolutely -- decades of experience with anti-evolutionists.
A study of religious beliefs v scientific contributions?
Don't change the subject. I've already stated that a "religious belief" in general is not incompatible with good science. That's not what I'm talking about when I speak of those with a "dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance".
And on *that* subject, yes, I've seen first-hand the scientific incompetence of such people.
"The Germans who poisoned the wells and springs of northern France and Belgium and fed little children poisoned candy were angels compared to the teachers, paid by our taxes, who feed our children's minds with the deadly, soul-destroying poison of Evolution....Evolution and the teaching of Evolution in tax-supported schools is the greatest curse that ever fell upon this earth." -- T. T. Martin, "Hell and the High Schools"Freedom of religion and equal protection under the law are guaranteed by the Constitution. There are Federal criminal statutes for discrimination based on religion. Federal and state law expressly prohibits discrimination based on religion. How do you justify your position under the law?
I'll let H. L. Mencken respond to that one, since he did it so much more eloquently than I could. Note, by the way, that this passage is part of his first-hand coverage of the "Scopes Monkey Trial", wherein a school teacher was on trial for teaching evolution (gasp), and Mencken was writing specifically of using religion as an excuse to reject the findings of science:
The meaning of religious freedom, I fear, is sometimes greatly misapprehended. It is taken to be a sort of immunity, not merely from governmental control but also from public opinion. A dunderhead gets himself a long-tailed coat, rises behind the sacred desk, and emits such bilge as would gag a Hottentot. Is it to pass unchallenged? If so, then what we have is not religious freedom at all, but the most intolerable and outrageous variety of religious despotism. Any fool, once he is admitted to holy orders, becomes infallible. Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied to all the rest of us.I do not know how many Americans entertain the ideas defended so ineptly by poor Bryan, but probably the number is very large. They are preached once a week in at least a hundred thousand rural churches, and they are heard too in the meaner quarters of the great cities. Nevertheless, though they are thus held to be sound by millions, these ideas remain mere rubbish. Not only are they not supported by the known facts; they are in direct contravention of the known facts. No man whose information is sound and whose mind functions normally can conceivably credit them. They are the products of ignorance and stupidity, either or both.
-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath", The Baltimore Evening Sun, September 14, 1925