Dear Milhouse,
You made me laugh. I could not care less about who is on which ticket. I will spell my point out clearly. Anti-science is found among all groups of people equally. You seem to have been surprised about Republicans (besides Trump) being called anti-science. It is an oft repeated concept. [Which nobody cares about.] You insisted that it it is not true. (Other than climate change.) So I looked into it. It seems like Republicans are more likely to oppose popular sciences, and Democrats are likely to refute the social sciences and the humanities. However, the Republicans are much better at getting into public fights with science. [The humanities are not suitable for public fights. V’hameivin] Robert Broun (evolution AND just about every scientific doctrine attached to it) and James Inhofe (climate change and see above) are the best at it.
Your point about Darwin is not taken.I think Einstein and Fermi are far more to where we are today. And, Darwin was not much for the interplay between science and the common people. Einstein again, and Schlick are well suited for that. Your points about policy should (more or less) be effected. But science should not be held to what is believed to be, science can explain what is and demonstrate the possible on it’s own.
Science is not rational. Reason is based on what we experience. When science finds something unexplainable (e. g. massive gas clouds) the answer is ‘mystical’ until a formula is calculated for it. Your point about the Democrats with refusing to implement policies that are backed by actual science is truthful.
DISCLAIMER, It could be Inhofe and Broun have a point or two. I never took him seriously. Many scientists who are not involved in evolution or climate change will be affected by their proposed policies.