It is not the hallmark of a scientific mind to accuse someone of being “anti-science”; that is evidence of political sound-bite machinery. After all, do not scientific minds know the origin of the word science? It hails from Latin, scio,scire, meaning to know. So, in an etymological sense, a scientist is one who knows something; anyone with knowledge is therefore a scientist. It is impossible, then, to be against knowing, and to be against knowledge is equally impossible. So where does this charge come from?
This charge comes from the lazy leftist thinkers who decry people who would use science for immoral ends. Is it an overbroad charge? Of course. Is it accurate? No. Refusing to fund the use of science that results in creation of human embryos, or experiments upon them, or uses them as raw material for medicines, vaccines, or whatnot — that is against a particular application of science. Opposing a particular use of science is not opposing the use of science as a whole.
However, looking closely at the aforementioned, it is difficult to understand why anyone would endorse such Frankenstenian, Nazi doctor behavior — unless money and fear were part of the mix, and they are. First, the federal government wishes to do such experiments in the name of research (remember: the Nazi doctors claimed the same thing, only their research was used to deliver results to the German war machine). Second, the government dangles money before researchers in the forms of grants. If you protest the use of grant money in this way, you don’t get it, and you may be blackballed from getting any grants in the future. Third, word has already been leaked to the press from other researchers who want more grant money, that these experiments “look promising” to cure diseases X, Y, and Z. The public then clamors for more research, and all the proponents of big government are happy. This slice of Elysium only lasts until the truth shows up, championed by the pro-life community, and which wrecks all of this plan, and attenuates government power, which in the mind of the left is always a bad thing. See, the left cannot see the end goal of any action today; that such experimentation legitimizes using humans as chattel will not matter to the left up until the point that they are forced into the Soviet youth camps and made to wear uniforms. Then, most of them will enjoy the sense of belonging so much, they will not notice what is being done in hospitals, in the camps, and what they are being asked to fight for.
Now, about the fear. To be a liberal means to be unsure about what you believe, not outwardly, but deep within. So, you are afraid that you are not correct, and thus, no dissent can be tolerated. That someone disagrees with you is a call for war. Also, what you fear most is the loss of your own life, followed closely behind by aging. Anything that serves to remove or attenuate these two horrors is loved, and thus, anyone who calls them bunkum must be vilified. Can’t they see that you are getting older and how bad that is? Lastly, liberals are crowd creatures. Anyone who refuses to go along with the crowd, is therefore ostracized and vilified. That these people don’t seem to mind makes them doubt that they are correct, and they cannot stand that. So, fear whips the liberal on and all he or she can sputter out is, “You’re anti-science!”
Now, there is a second way in which this epithet is used, and that is to shame and ostracize those who are not atheists, or at least Darwinists. In this parlance, “anti-science” means that the accused is not a believer in Darwinian evolution. Humorously, liberals believe that by accusing somebody of something that they believe will shame them; this is classic projection, for right-wingers and Christians are not ashamed of what they believe. The false front and surface righteousness is a game that liberals play, to cover up their vile agenda of fetal dismemberment, racial animus, self-hatred, and sodomy. So in one sense, the accused are not believers in science (or rather Scientism), but to say that they are against science, like the science of physics, biology, or fluid dynamics? Hogwash. That is a mindless charge. Nobody opposes the creation of a hypothesis which then works in the real world. But as a code word for “you’re not like us!” then, it is true. However, nearly every phrase in the liberal playbook does not mean what is appears to say, but is merely a stand in for the same idea.
Liberalism is the politics of shame, and the “anti-science” canard is just one more pointless phrase deployed to exclude people and cajole them to be liberals. It has no intrinsic meaning; it has no substance. It is the language of high school used by those who never matured.