Religious conservatives are often accused of being “anti-science” because of our objection to human embryonic stem cell research.
Two quick thoughts:
1) It’s not religious conservatives, but secular progressives, who most frequently reject the biological definition of when human life begins, perpetuate the myth that casual sex is harmless, consult horoscopes, deny the biological differences between males and females, oppose genetically modified crops (which have the potential to save millions of lives in developing countries), deny the sociological benefits of religious belief, and refuse to vaccinate children against preventable diseases (a decision that sometimes, you know, kills people). It’s ironic that the same people who insist that science should replace religion as the authoritative source of human knowledge, meaning, and morality are the quickest to dismiss or dispute scientific findings that clash with their own opinions.
2) It isn’t “anti-science” to have ethical objections to the use of human embryonic stem cells any more than it’s “anti-science” to have ethical objections to experiments done on prisoners in Nazi death camps. Disagreements over the ethical boundaries of science are not the same thing as disagreements over the value of science itself.