After publishing my controversial article on the scientific, sociological, and spiritual dangers of evolution, there was, understandably, a mixed response. I will here seek to address some of the objections and issues raised, and provide a defense for the theses presented in the article. "Apology" here is used in it's more archaic sense, which is "to provide a defense for."
Objection/Issue 1: The article does not refute evolution.
The article is not meant to be a refutation of evolution, it is simply meant to show the adverse effects that the acceptance of evolution has had on society. Of course that thesis does not refute evolution, but it gives people the chance to think: "I believe in evolution, but at what cost or effect?" The goal of the article is not to prove evolution false, it's goal is to get people to consider the implications of evolution, and to provide a counter to atheists who are deterred from Christianity (and religion in general) due to the evils nominally committed due to it...
Objection/Issue 2: Evolution is just science, thus it cannot be made responsible for the evils mentioned in the article. Decrying evolution is like decrying gravity!
The fact that the theory of evolution is considered science does not make it's implications (which are as far ranging as sociology and theology) any less ponderous, and these implications have been realized in the examples related in the article. As far as the Evolution/Gravity comparison, while gravity is a proven fact, there are grounds for rejecting evolution's authenticity. Unlike gravity, evolution presents an ideological component, one which is liable to be used toward evil ends, such as those expressed in the article.
Objection/Issue 3: Just because the fit tend to survive (as evolution says) does not mean that the weak should be exterminated, the article confuses an "is" with an "ought."
It is not the article that confuses an "is" with an "ought," when it comes to evolution's links to social evils, it is the examples provided in the article that have done so (in a broad sense), in the past, to the detriment of humanity. This ties back to the ideological concepts that are involved with evolution. Evolution has not so much been the cause of these evils as it has been used as a justifier for them, as the article states.
Objection/Issue 4: Evolution could not have led to these evils, as they were around long before Darwin.
As the article admits, evolution did not cause all of the social evils mentioned, it merely encouraged or provided justification for them. However, the examples in which evolution was a direct cause must not be downplayed or overlooked. As I have said earlier, the verb evolution has performed in these instances was often encouraging or justifying rather than causing.
Objection/Issue 5: Why do you give examples of Biblically justified racism etc. a pass here? Christianity has been used to justify terrible things too!
The article was not meant to address Christianity's link to social evils, so it is unsurprising that they would not be mentioned. It should be noted though, and noted well, that all evil things done in the name of Christianity are contrary and inconsistent with the true Christian message. Conversely, social evils such as those mentioned in the article are generally consistent with the implicit ideologies of evolutionary theory.
Objection/Issue 6: Evolution is not inherently atheistic and it does not lead people to become so, as correlation is not causation.
The article admits that there is no way to prove that the increase of the acceptance of evolution has been the sole cause of the rise of atheism. However, the data show a striking correlation, and although correlation is not causation, the correlation is obviously real and should not be dismissed without being given some thought.
Objection/Issue 7: The article paints all evolutionists as diabolically evil. Not all evolutionists are atheists and/or bad people.
Although the article certainly does not mean to give the impression that all evolutionists are bad people, it is understandable that it could inadvertently convey such a sentiment, and this impression should not be ignored. I will readily admit that believing in evolution does not make a person evil and immoral, and many Christians also accept evolution (although I do not condone this, as it is inconsistent with the scriptures). Although rhetoric common today tries to make an attack on an idea an attack on the individual holding it, it is important to remember that that is definitely not always the case, and is not here.
In the end, I hope this defense of "The Implications of Evolution" has proven enlightening and/or clarifying, and if you have a new objection to the article, or desire clarification on some point, feel free to leave it in the comments section.