Is the Democratic party the 'science' party?

This stems from another post about defending partisan universities. The claim has been made by several in this forum,and by many democrats in then public eye, that the Democratic party is the rational party because they accept scientific explanations and believe what they believe accordingly while the Republicans tend to be the stubborn asss in this area and refusing to change their religious beliefs and also refusing to accept climate change.
I offer two points to the contrary.( probably more )
1). Natural law. Natural law is the name for how the universe works, the laws it obeys according to science. A person with a good understanding of evolutionary theory understands that's natural law is amoral showing no favoritism twords any form of life or even to life itself. Its been called survival of the fittest but more accurately it is survival of those who survive...fit or otherwise. This built in law is more simply common sense but a truth that stems from this is that those who capitalize on benefits, whether genetic, environmental, or simply being in the right place at the right time, those who have advantage of any sort and capitalize on this advantage tend to survive better than some others lacking that particular advantage or some who fail to capitalize on an advantage at hand. This is how capitalism mimics natural law. Those who are born with a genetic advantage, or financial advantage or simply in the right place at the right time...and who capitalize on that advantage often survive better than someone without. The right place at the right time could be demonstrated by say using a groundhog. If a particular ground hog wanders upon a well protected plentiful area with abundant food that ground hog could live well and if there are mating opportunities that family of groundhog could reproduce and flourish.....this example has many more factors but you get the point. Capitalism mimics natural law. Those who capitalize on an advantage have a better chance of flourishing. This is why I said in another forum post that the conservative party can be home to atheist who are athiest because of their belief that natural law is the only law of the universe. The core philosophy behind the conservative capitalist party is directly in line with natural law...it mimics natural law.
The joining of this philosophy with our constitution which derives human rights from a God, no matter if they don't believe in a God, it mandates that human rights are nonnegotiable. Combine these two philosophies and you have a free people who are free to capitalize on whatever opportunity they can without infringement upon another inalienable human rights.....this is the core belief behind the conservative party whether the followers are theist or athiest and it mimics natural law...the scientific law of the universe. The opposite is true of the Democratic philosophy. That's a massive new thread which we might discuss as we debate this topic bit the second point I wanted to make in defense of the conservative party in regard to its apparent opposition to scientific claims is that a thorough understanding of the claims that scientist make that conservatives question shows that the claims are not scientific facts bit simply an interpretation of data !Ade by scientist. One thing apparent is that many accept an idea if it is presented as acientific , at least liberal democrats have an easier time with this than conservatives and partially because them claims being made are usually at the expense of a conservative ideal or value. Evolution has been used by many liberal reporters to attack religious conservatives but a closer examination of evolutionary theory shows that it may present a problem to a 6 day creation belief but it really does nothing to infringe upon the idea that a God did created the universe. evolutionary theory does however do a lot of damage to the humanist ideals held by these very same liberal reports who weild it unknowingly. The greater point is that to accept something as scientific without fully understanding what it is, you are simply placing your faith in these scientist and blindly accepting that a) they really do know what they are talking about and b) they have no motives other than to inform you of a scientific truth. I should add c) that the conclusions these scientist reach about the philosophical consequences of this scientific observation are as valid as their science and this is where most of the scientific community gets it wrong. I will make the claim that a collective of scientist could give you very good science but get the conclusions completely off or give a completely biased report.
Now for generalizations.
A person confronted with some idea that is being called scientific fact but goes against everything that they believe in is not going to chance their mind simply because a group of scientific experts say it is true. A person in this situation would either deny it with the claim that it's not true but then simply deny it and do no foot work to find out for themselves or...... do the footwork. This is the challenge for conservative deniers if they feel strongly about an issue and it should also be the footwork for anyone accepting what these scientist are saying. I do not think conservatives are anti science they just don't like the science that is being used....incorrectly...to assault their beliefs.
The two scientific arguments used that conservatives don't bow down to are evolution, which is not a threat but still used that way by people who don't really understand it and feared by conservatives who don't understand it ,and climate change.
Such a political topic and my take is that I am not an expert or even knowledgeably enough to make a claim, but I do not this k science has mastered the complex nature of climate change enough to make accurate predictions and the growing polar ice cap is a great example of this. I will make one generalization that will cause an outcry but why not....I would say that liberal democrats worship scientist, its a culture of scientific worship that has replaced religion for liberals and it doesn't mean they are more scientific it just means that if you label it science they will accept it without doing the footwork they should be doing to determine if it is good science and more importantly are the conclusions made actually philosophically consistent.
The debate is that there are more relevant scientist making the claim that climate change is not the way Democrats are presenting it and the way democrats try to demonize and silence any opposition to their climate change theory simply makes me and many conservatives all that more skeptical.
Too much here for one thread, should be more but I don't have the time tonight. I will say that in conclusion the conservative capitalist philosophy is directly in accordance with natural law and that conservatives don't disagree with science but question science that is used as a political weapon ( wrongly so) and don't blindly follow every word out of a notable scientist mouth like a democrat does ( generalization) but maybe its just that the things being called scientific are used to assault their beliefs and we have seen in several of these threads how angry Democrats can get when confronted with science that contradicts their humanist beliefs. ( no time to edit sry)