I don’t think any scientific research should be suppressed or banned, but just like with the concept of free speech, you having the right to speech doesn’t mean anyone is entitled to give you a platform and megaphone. Same concept here. If someone produces research that has racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic consequences, no one is obliged to give it any consideration or platform to spread and it can be thrown into the garbage bin of terrible ideas, like with eugenics.
Ummm, do you know what a “scientific theory” actually is?
Social Darwinism doesn’t only mean eugenics. That’s only part of it, and less relevant today.
Today it’s often used to promote the idea that the rich and powerful are intrinsically ‘better’ or ‘more fit’ than others. See Ayn Rand.
It’s used to justify laissez-faire capitalism, cut-throat competitiveness, social and financial inequality, authoritarianism, racism, and imperialism. It’s the idea that the poor, and usually also people of color, are inherently inferior and ‘weak’.
Social Darwinism is currently very popular in right-wing circles, never mind that it’s unscientific and discredited.
Cloning and artificial intelligence.
Maybe I have watched too much science fiction but the above scares me. For example with cloning people could have clones of them and later on, harvest that clone for their exact body parts. Or they could create a class of subservient clones to act as servants and such.
As for AI what really would keep a smart computer from taking over?
Modnote: This is in general and not aimed at anyone specifically.
GD rules specifically prohibit Scientific racism or any particular argument about why any particular group of humans is inherently better than any other group.
So be careful, we will warn those that cross this line.
I read a dystopian scifi novel like that once. Rich people could pay to have a clone made of their child at birth, who would be kept in a medical facility and used for spare parts. The clones were normal humans and basically the identical twin of the rich person, but kept in really deprived conditions and not legally persons.
Lack of opposable thumbs? 
An interesting study cited in a mid 20-teens lecture by Robert Sapolsky showed results in math aptitude between male and female students in the most advanced and socially egalitarian nations around the world. On average, male students showed a greater aptitude for math than female students. One might conclude that on average, men have some sort of biological advantage to doing math related mental activities. If not for one country. In Iceland, on average, female students did slightly better than their male counterparts. Which answers the hypothesis about whether men are better than women at math – they are not. So a follow up question was asked; Given Iceland’s leading egalitarian social structure, why do fewer women pursue a STEM career option. Turns out the answer is not very straight forward and not necessarily one of social discrimination against women in certain STEM fields. Women appear to have greater interest in jobs that are not STEM focused, i.e. social sciences, education, medicine, etc…
So the answer to the question about differences may be biology (nature; which isn’t to dismiss nurture) but not for reasons some have hypothesized. More studies are needed and likely on going.
The idea of eugenics (as a philosophical stance, not just the practical infanticide aspect, which is much older) has been around since at least Plato. To save you looking it up - that’s ~400 BC.
This isn’t a theory; it’s a hypothesis. It’s a known and uncontroversial fact that physicists tend male and biologists tend female (compared to other scientists), but nobody yet knows why that’s the case. It might be biological, it might be cultural, it might be a combination.
Yeah-A computer system has wiped out your bank account, ruined your credit score and put out numerous false arrest warrants in your name…but you win because you maintain the ability to carry a club. 
Back to the main problem with your OP: You seem to have no concept as to what a “scientific theory” actually is. Can you clear this up, please?
Exactly how does the Theory of Evolution* “encourage atheism”?
*Evolution is an observed fact, the theory explains, as best as we currently can, how evolution happens.
I would say in that it contradicts the Bible. Anything that answers a question that used to be answered with “God did it” is something that could cause one to question what exactly it was that God did, and whether or not there is a need for a god at all to explain the universe.
@DemonTree is correct that offering alternative explanations to the theological assertion enables atheism, but the religious people that she references are incorrect that it leads to a less moral society.
Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews all disagree with you.
Am I using the wrong smiley to indicate a joke or something?
Perhaps ‘hypothesis’ or ‘potential theory’ would be better terms? An explanation for observed facts that we can find evidence for or against, and make a reasonable determination as to whether it’s correct or not.
A few things here, to respond to your cute little one liner.
For one, we are talking about the people that @DemonTree is talking about, those who don’t agree with the Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews who you are talking about. So no, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews would have nothing to disagree with me about the religious folk that @DemonTree is talking about feeling that evolution contradicts their beliefs.
For two, while Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews do not take the creation story as laid out in Genesis literally, they would still agree that the actual story as told in the Bible is contradicted by modern evolutionary theory. This is the reason that they do not take it literally anymore.
Finally, if you think that Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews would disagree with me, what reason would you say that Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews would say that the religious people that @DemonTree references feel that evolutionary theory encourages atheism?
You can disregard this if it was just the case that you chose not to take the context of the conversation into account when you composed your quip.
Try, “guess”, or even better, “unsubstantiated guess.”
Not to junior mod, but I think we are sidetracking the thread. We have gone from “if a scientific theory is true but horrific, should we squash it?” to nitpicking over the minutae of what is or isn’t a theory.
I’d have no problem with this if they were created in such a way as to not have any sort of higher brain function. Just enough to keep the body alive, but no thoughts, memories or any type of sentience.
Like a baby born with anencephaly? I’m guessing you don’t think it would be okay to kill one of them in order to harvest their organs for transplant?
As there is no such thing as a scientific theory that is “true” then it’s less about nitpicking, and more about the very subject of the thread.
If the OP doesn’t give a good definition of what it is that they are talking about, then that definition does need to be determined within the thread.