Argument from adverse consequences? even neoPlatonists know better than that.
one point: were the synthetic theory of evolution to be faithfully developed into a sociopolitical philosophy, it would be antithetical to socialism.
socialism, in a nutshell, essentially has the artificially-determined welfare of the species determining the daily lives and fates of the individuals within its population. it also contains as a root tenet that all individuals are identical and interchangeable.
a philosophy extrapolated from evolution would have the daily lives and fates of the individuals naturally determine the status of the species they comprise. it would also have as a central tenet that all individuals are unique, that none are precisely interchangeable, that distribution of characteristics are NOT equally distributed.
this "evolution-based" philosophy strongly resembles the the ideal of individualistic elitist meritocracy towards which capitalistic free societies aspire.
on the other hand, there really is little difference between theocrats and leftists. both are raging statists - they just dress different, have different names for their oligarchic masters, and use slightly different scare tactics.
[hiatus mode]
Well then King, why hasn't this been done yet? (Though you seem to have effectively done so in your fine post here). You let Marxists like Lewontin (and presumably Dawkins, others) use the theory to support their view of a sociopolitical order that seeks the very opposite of a liberal, just, free society.
Jeepers, I've heard Richard Dawkins wax poetic over the splendors of the ant heap via-a-vis the sort of social order that Western man has historically considered natural and normative. There are individuals in an ant heap too, ya know. But they are not "individuals" in the way we usually think of human beings.
Notwithstanding those quibbles, let me congratulate you on a great post, King Prout! Thank you.