No, Scientific Racism does not progress inevitably or logically from the Theory of Evolution. "Scientific Racism" is a deliberate twisting of science. Nothing in actual biology supports racism, which is based on minor cosmetic differences and generalizations. There is no scientific basis for the idea of different races whatsoever- all of the "races" blend together and overlap to some extent, and the differences between individuals within a "race" are greater than those between "races". Saying "Scientific Racism" is a logical progression of the Theory of Evolution is like saying Nazism is a logical progression of religion.
Right, racism and slavery are all the fault of Muslims and Arabs. Where did you get that from, Brietbart? Do you really not see the contradiction in "Racism is all the fault of those dirty Arabs" as an argument? Or do you just think that we're too stupid to see it?
Racists don't care what black people believe, and they've had no trouble condemning majority-Christian populations at numerous times- see the historical prejudice against the Irish or the Polish (which still lingers to some extent in places). And Christianity was explicitly used to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War South. Of course, that does not mean all Christians are racist. Christians are diverse individuals who should be judged as individuals, like all people. But by the same token, Christianity is not a magic anti-racism button.
Here, I'll make this simple: "5+3" is a different equation than "6+2". They both equal the same amount. They are different. They are equal.
Technology has helped to improve conditions for women in certain respects, yes (lower infant mortality rates and fewer deaths in child birth are the obvious ones, as they mean that there is no longer a need for most women to spend the bulk of their lives having as many babies as possible to make sure one or two make it to adulthood). This is the one semi-valid point that you have made thus far.
That is a hell of a generalization. In any case, its easy to skew a study to get the result that you want, and it sounds like that "study" was designed by someone trying desperately to justify their own bigotry via an Appeal to Nature fallacy. In the absence of a source or confirmation of peer review, I'm not going to give this "study" any weight whatsoever. But even if it were valid, it would not follow that homophobia is an inevitable or unchangeable part of human nature. The whole point of being self-aware beings is that we can be aware of our biases and consciously choose to reject them when they cause more harm than good- that we can be more than our base natures.
Thing is, as you have pointed out, humans do have biases. Of course, they can discard them, but it is just a can and throughout history, it didn't happen until the 20th century. That's why I do not understand why many people think that racism or sexism could have been avoided by a magical point of divergence where after some centuries world peace reigned and we all lived in harmony. There are always some people out there thinking that racism is justified, who think homosexuals are morally disgusting or that think that women belong to the kitchen. I would even go as far as to say that racism and sexism are indeed inevitable, simply because the bias against one group or another has existed throughout millennia in very different cultures.
Humans are just humans, we never liked foreigners at first, and it's just too easy to politically or economically capitalize on this resentment.
And on the difference between woman and men, of course they are equal but still different. Just like cultures are equal, but different. And this difference is enough to develop some bias against the other side. Sexism will always develop, especially because men are stronger and more aggressive, also men do not have to go through the pain of having a child in their womb for nine months which more oftenly than not forces woman to retire until the birth of the child, forcing their husbands or boyfriends to care for and protect her and their shared child, therefore enabling some sort of patriarchy and "supremacy" over woman. Not that it is justified to establish one because it is not, but I just want to explain why women played an "inferior" role in politics and common life for most of human civilization.