Darwin’s hypothesis removes all moral restraint.
When you remove all moral restraint, you get people like Hitler, Harris and Klebold.
Evolution as a belief, should not be rejected because it has such admirers, but because it promotes them.
You should be aware that Darwin’s hypothesis cannot be ‘incorrect’ because it is based on philosophical assumptions, which cannot be disproved.
Something that is held to be true, but cannot be disproved, is not empirical science.
A belief is what you end up with.
No, it doesn't, as discussed by Darwin himself. It may pose interesting questions about where moral restraint comes from, but it certainly doesn't remove it.
Something that is held to be true, but cannot be disproved,
But evolution can very easily be disproved. Discovering the famous Cambrian rabbit, or human bones mixed with dinosaur bones, would be a serious problem for the parts of the theory based on fossils. An animal that had gills and breasts would be an issue for the homology aspects. Finding out that humans were genetically more similar to cats than chimpanzees would have blown up the genetic part--a part that Darwin never even knew about. And yet none of that happened. Genetic science has only strengthened the theory, when it could have destroyed it.
Are you admitting that Evolution is a theological debate then?
I don't see how you get that out of my saying that evolution and science do not address theology, but in any case: no.
Tell me this, what good has Evolution, as a whole, done for society?
Why? What would that have to do with whether it was correct or not?