I've been encountering a bunch of stuff, lately, on some of the blogs I frequent, concerning the compatibility of Darwinism and conservatism. Here, FWIW, is my take on that interesting question, in as few words as possible:
In his essay "The Wagner Case," Nietzsche summed up the worldview of the "revolutionary ideologist" like this: "For half his lifetime Wagner believed in revolution as only a Frenchman has ever believed in it...'Whence comes all the evil in the world?' Wagner asked himself. From 'Ancient compacts,' he answered, like all revolutionary ideologists. In plain words: from customs, laws moralities, institutions, from all that upon which the old world, the old society depends. 'How can the world be rid of evil? How can the old society be abolished?' Only by declaring war on the 'compacts' (the traditional, the moral)..." (tr. Hollingdale)
I think that's about right. Marx is a good example: he dismissed all traditional "customs, laws, moralities, institutions" as mere ideological "superstructure" - i.e., a pack of ancient lies through which the wealthy and empowered classes justified the perpetuation of their wealth and their power. And more recent revolutionary movements have followed in his footsteps. Most notably, feminists have dismissed traditional conceptions of the differences between men and women, together with all the consequences that those supposed differences entailed for their typical roles in life, as so many tools of patriarchal oppression. Similarly, multi-culturalists have dismissed traditional conceptions of the differences between racial and ethnic groups as no more than enabling myths of white supremacism.
In their war with tradition, such revolutionary ideologists have been eager to seize upon anything that might seems to discredit religion. So they have seized upon Darwin's theory of Evolution as a stick with which to beat Christianity. And, to an extent, it serves that purpose well, since Darwinism offers an account of the "origin of species," in all their diversity and complexity, without resort to divine intervention - thus, if true, dispensing, once and for all, with William Paley's "argument from design" for the existence of God.
Admittedly, that was always among the weaker of the standard arguments for the existence of God. But still - every little bit helps!
Trouble is, Darwinism doesn't stop with its account of the "origin of species." It goes on. And on, and on. And a lot of what it goes on to say is, in the first place, harder to fault than its highly speculative account of the progression from microbe to man, and, in the second place, extremely inconvenient for the sort of "revolutionary ideologists" mentioned above.
'Cause evolutionary theory has it's own story to tell about things like the differences between men and women, and the differences between racial and ethnic groups - the general upshot of which is that, by guess and by golly, our ancestors pretty much got all that stuff right. And it had nothing to do with evil patriarchal oppression, or wicked white supremacism. It simply had to do with homo sapiens experiencing and adapting to reality...to the facts on the ground, as they say, these days.
E.g.: men and women, on average, really are different - in ways that are not only easily predictable, from a Darwinian point of view, but which your grandmother probably understood better than your grand-daughter will - brainwashed as she will have been by the revolutionary ideologists who control American education from start to finish. And human racial and ethnic groups differ in ways that are at least as deep, and even more interesting, than the ways in which the various breeds of cats and dogs and chickens and goats and every other animal under the sun differ from one another. And those differences reveal more about the way the world wags than all the multi-culti mythology that ever has been or ever will be written.
In short, much (most?) of evolutionary theory is reactionary dynamite.