Are they anti science?

Of course. As long as both sides of the argument are 100% consistent with the EVIDENCE. That is all that matters in science. Any body of evidence may allow more than one interpretation. When that happens, we attempt to devise further experiments to support one side or the other to resolve the discrepancy, and then we follow the EVIDENCE.

And that, of course, is where you always utterly fail. Your side is ludicrously inconsistent with the evidence, through a combination of ignorance, stupidity, calculated deception, and just outright lies. I mean, let's not forget your own idiotic claim that population genetic data is consistent with the story of Noah's Ark, with can be explained with any of these:

-Ignorance: you have repeatedly demonstrated that despite your fondness for scientific vocabulary, you don't understand any actual science AT ALL. Thus, it is possible that your ignorance of the actual data explains this ridiculous assertion.

-Stupidity: you may have been aware of the evidence, but just not smart enough to understand it or its proper interpretation.

-Deception: you fully understood that what you were saying was horseshit, but figured it sounded plausible enough that you might fool a few more braindead morons into believing you.

-Lies: you may have just said, "screw it. I will say anything and everything I can think of, no matter how completely wrong it is, if I think it'll support my side."

Only if they have REAL evidence instead of BS.