Rejecting evolution does equal rejecting science if it is “I don’t like it, so it must be wrong.” Evolution should be subject to careful examination, just like any other scientific claim (or any claim, for that matter). Rejection of evolution is characteristically associated with uncritical acceptance of any claim that seems to agree with one’s own position, no matter how contradictory or bad those claims are.
Of course, defining evolution, evolution rejection, and science are issues. Biological evolution is well-supported scientifically, so rejecting it is an example of rejecting well-supported science. It’s often associated with other science rejection (e.g., global warming denial, pollution is not harmful, smoking is not so bad), though science rejection also comes from other areas such as left-wing relativism. Evolution is an integral part of biology, as famously pointed out by the well-known self-identified creationist Theodosius Dobzhansky. Agriculture is all about evolution by artificial selection as well as the evolution of pest organisms. It provides critical information for medicine, e.g. the evolution of new strains of COVID or direction on closest comparisons for humans. Although the study of physics, chemistry, and math are not directly affected by biological evolution, attacks on evolution often include bad claims about physics, chemistry, or math (for example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not pose a problem for evolution, but it does show that a global flood or sped-up plate tectonics would melt the earth). Conversely, the study of biological evolution makes much use of physics, chemistry, and math, and the process of generating new DNA sequences is chemistry. Biological evolution provides key organizing principles and a major topic of investigation in botany. Likewise, the history of life is a major part of geology - even if one is studying igneous or metamorphic rocks, living things have impacts on the overall cycles of the earth, so evolution is not irrelevant.
Of course, there are plenty of details that one can study without reference to evolution. I would modify Dobzhansky’s statement to “Everything in biology makes sense in light of evolution”, playing on two meanings of everything - all aspects of biology individually make sense in light of evolution and integrating all of biology depends on evolution. But evolution is a well-supported model of the standard way of creating new kinds of organisms. The claim that “reproduce after their kinds” means that new “kinds” cannot be created using natural means owes more to Platonistic concepts of ideals than to any biblical justification, and the changing claims about what a “kind” is in YEC circles also point to problems with this concept.