No I am suggesting that without a theory of natural selection to explain the fact of evolutionary change there would be little cognitive understanding of genetic drift, the founder effect, hardy-weinburg equilibrium, allelic differences observed in molecular biology, allelic differences as it is applied to pharmacology, selective breeding, and paleontology. How can one make sense of all this without a rational theory to explain it? One can pre-suppose a supernatural explanation for all geological change and the observed mass extinctions; but that doesn't lead to any deep understanding of the actual history and forces that shape our planet.
Social darwinism is a red-herring. What most object to is dismissing the notion of a "special" creation for man. Social darwinism is, like most social "science", mainly a collection of one sided conjecture and pontification. Social darwinism ignores all the numerous symbiosis altruism and cooperation observed in nature that is needed to be a succesful species, especially among humans.
Is that a scientifically verified statement? What exactly do you mean by "most"? "Most" of what? And who did the research? How do you know what "Most" object to?>
I think here you reasoned past your data. What's good for the supernaturalist is good for the empiricist, seems to me. There seems to be rather a lot of pontificating going on here, and just as the supernaturalists seem often to take unjustifiable excursions in to the field of empirical science, the heirs of Bacon seem a mite hasty in making not only the kind of judgment that COULD, theoretically be verified ("..most object to ...) but also into fields outside of that sort of thing.
If you have a moment, I'd recommend C.S. Lewis on evolution, NOT as a science but as a weltanschaaung.
Oh, and if you meant to dazzle me with the list of things that wouldn't make sense without Darwin, it didn't work. I have my rhetorical sunglasses on.