I don't see the argument being so much, "Look at what evolutionism causes, therefore it is false." The point is simply that evolutionism is used by some to justify eugenics, communism, abortion, etc.
But don't get preachy with me if your fundamental belief is that we are not intelligently designed and specially created by God. It places you totally out of your element and makes you evidence against the very ideas you espouse, namely that intelligent design is mystical, superstitious, relgious and unscientific. It is none of these, but is the very reason science has an intelligible universe to study, enjoy, and employ in the first place.
Fester, you were BORN out of your element. No offense, my friend, but you know nothing about science and refuse to learn. You keep introducing sophomoric late-night philosophy rants in what are otherwise scientific discussions (or science versus ignorance as with this one).
"The point is simply that evolutionism is used by some to justify eugenics, communism, abortion, etc."
First, it's evolution, not "evolutionism." Second, so what if some people misuse and twist evolutionary theory to support their own twisted ideas? I already pointed this out - gravity isn't false because people get killed from being thrown off buildings, germ theory isn't false because of biological warfare, atomic theory and relativity isn't false because of the 2 bombs we dropped on Japan - THEY STAND OR FALL ENTIRELY ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.
"But don't get preachy with me if your fundamental belief is that we are not intelligently designed and specially created by God. It places you totally out of your element and makes you evidence against the very ideas you espouse, namely that intelligent design is mystical, superstitious, relgious and unscientific. It is none of these, but is the very reason science has an intelligible universe to study, enjoy, and employ in the first place."
Intelligent Design isn't religious? You mind explaining the Wedge Document, why ID-proponents assert that natural causes could not allow for the diversity of life and thus their must be non-natural causes (in other words, a thinly-disguised telelogical appeal), and why Dembski blew his hat by saying, "Even many Christians who have been raised and indoctrinated in a secular mindset ... will say, 'Look, we're just going to have to accept the science of the day and try to make our peace with it theologically,'" Dembski said. "And there is no peace theologically ... ultimately with this view [Darwinian evolution]. But they accept it. And so, this idea of intelligent design becomes very threatening." (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20574) Oh, sure he said it at a Baptist Seminary; but he generally admitted that the entire contention is religious, not scientific.
Or, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science," says the conference's prime mover, law professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley. "It's about religion and philosophy." Mr. Johnson also insists the real issue in the century-old debate isn't even about the early chapters of Genesis. "I turn instead to John 1," says the astute Presbyterian layman, "where we're told that 'In the beginning was the word.'" (http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=374)
"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"(Phillip Johnson, "Missionary Man", Church & State, April 1999)
Of course, DI does their best to drown out attention on the Wedge Document. But, they've shot themselves in the foot. They've shown the world what biologists knew all along - DI's doing for religion not science.
Let's see if ID is science. From a previous post:
"Is ID...:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?"
The Designer is not naturalistic; ID has already made that as a claim of their "theory." Since the Designer's not naturalistic, science can make no objective predictions of the Designer nor can science falsify the Designer. Thus, the Designer and the theory are neither falsifiable nor naturalistic. The falsifiable components, CSI and IC, have been meticulously falsified by TalkOrigins, Kenneth Miller, and many other biologists.
It's not tentative - ID assumed the conclusion, provided "evidence" for it, and concluded the assumption.
It's not parsimonius; they have to invoke an intelligent Designer to explain the diversity of life when evolution is very successful at doing that already also. They have to explain how an Intelligent Designer would make 98.5% of our genome and many other organisms consists of ERVS, noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. They also have to complicate matters by explaining how chimps and humans have identical ERV insertions. All they can do is say, "That's what the Designer wanted."
It doesn't make accurate predictions; IC is falsified, CSI is falsified, and other than that, ID doesn't even attempt to make specific, risky predictions. It produces no research.
It's not encompassing. It doesn't explain identical ERV insertions, or chromosomal fusion in chromosome #2 in humans, or why all the evidence points towards evolution. When relativity replaced newtonian physics, it had to account for why so many predictions of Newtonian physics were accurate. ID doesn't even attempt to do that.
And finally, it's not supported. The evidence they have? Negative, misinformed arguments against evolution mostly. The only postive arguments? CSI and IC, both of which have been falsified.
So take your pick. But, I'll personally stick to science where I see it.