Godwin's Law ends this one before it even begins.
WARNING! I am about to say something morally repugnant. If you are offended by things like Holocaust Denial and thought experiments depending on extreme examples of moral relativism, stop reading now.
Okay, so the problem with the Theory of Evolution is that it leads to conclusion that the Holocaust, which killed many of undesireables such as Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals, is no more evil than the Bird Flu, which kills many birds of various types.
According to evolution, both human beings and deadly viruses are the product of natural processes that do not involve a moral component. Hitler, a human being and therefore a product of evolution, was just as natural as the wolverine, the great white shark, and the bird flu. Thus, his policies were also products of nature. Deadly? Sure. Evil? Not at all. We don't make a moral judgement of Dutch Elm Disease, do we? So why should we make a moral judgement of Nazism, which is just as natural?
One problem with my line of reasoning is that we seem to also have evolved to think of some things--such as the Holocaust--as evil.
But this raises a dilemma: which natural result of natural processes is more "natural"? Which is the evolutionary outcome we should embrace, the Holocaust or Human Rights?
And if some of us choose the Holocaust, how can the rest of us claim that such a choice is unnatural? Wouldn't that choice be a result of the natural processes of evolution?
I mean, if it isn't a result of evolution, than what did cause it? What else is there?
Of course, you theists out there have your assorted answers already prepared, so this is really for the atheists in the audience: Evolution says Hitler is a-okay. What's up with that?