Ah yes, you're referring to Ben Carson, the famous neurosurgeon. Let's take a look at one of his more prominent scientific statements on homosexuality:
> "[homosexuality] is a absolutely a choice (...) because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."
Brilliant, right? In a subsequent defense of his statement (couched in an apology of sorts), he went on to deny the very existence of transgender and intersexual people:
> "I'm a doctor trained in multiple fields of medicine. Some of our brightest minds have looked at this debate, up until this point there have been no definitive studies that people are born into a specific sexuality. We do know, however, that we are always born male and female."
Unfortunately his vast medical knowledge and experience seems to have left him completely unaware of the numerous people born physically hermaphroditic, or the much greater numbers of people whose non-binary sexual development is caused by hormonal conditions such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
That such profoundly ignorant statements lead many people to discount Dr. Carson's opinions is thoroughly unsurprising.
I'm not letting the irony escape here; you've found the time to express a strong emotional response, but not enough time to actually explain or argue.
> There is no comparable anti-intellectual
As I hinted at above, how are we defining anti-intellectual today? Because a very quick check suggested to me that "anti-intellectualism" is defined as "republican party policy". Eg, I found a Quora article [0] where someone attempts to spin homosexuality as an intellectualism issue (second point, ironically dismissing the opinions of a neurosurgeon as unscientific in the process). That is off the rails; being homophobic is just plain bigotry. Homophobia is a symptom of intolerance, not anti-intellectualism. The scientific status of homosexuality is probably irrelevant to most bigots.
If we define anti-intellectual as anti-science, then it is plague on both houses territory. Both wings of politics have hot-button issues where any attempt to use science will result in angry crowds forming.
If we are defining that as right-wing people don't like academics then that seems plausible to me, but also not exactly a problem. Academics can be wrong politically just like the rest of us (academics were famously pro-communism as a body, and look where that went!). With that in mind, it isn't anti-intellectualism as such rather than a recognition that academics aren't supporting issues that right wing voters think are important. Pretend that 60% of plumbers associate right wing - nobody on the left is anti-plumber because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. At worst their political beliefs would be ignored.
[0] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-think-the-GOP-is-anti-in...