The point with the Rwandan case is that they abused the concept of homology and morphology in creating false classifications.
So once again misuse occurs, not because of the information but because of the ideology\beliefs of the misusers.
There are implications behind making homology and hierarchical claims.
Correct, and when the knowledge and methodology is correctly used then the implications reflect reality. When those homology and hierarchal claims are tested by DNA analysis and validated then we have an increase in knowledge built on the shoulders of previous knowledge. When two different systems are consilient in their results, the evidence is strong that these results represent reality even if each system on its own is weak.
Someone describing how the heart works does not carry those ramifications. ...
Except for those who think the heart is where emotions lie?
... And notable Atheists like Dawkins have actively used evolution to make socio-political anti religious points. ...
All people are free to express their opinions. Personally I find Dawkins treading outside his field of expertise to be just as un/informed as any other person expressing their opinion. And as I have said before, opinion\belief has shown a very poor track record in affecting reality in any way. Thus opinion\belief needs to be based on knowledge of reality as much as possible to be as valid as possible. Thus science informs philosophy rather than the other way around.
... The people in the field are the ones who have tried to enforce the alleged ramifications.
If the ramifications of knowledge of reality affects your opinions\beliefs in a perceived negative manner, then the responsibility is yours for having those opinions\beliefs.
I don't think you can claim humans evolved and not expect to have deep consequences to how we view ourselves and society.
Hopefully it would result in a more reality based view of ourselves and society than one based on fantasy, imagination, hatred and ignorance.