What an intriguing idea! but I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean autism in the strictly scientific sense, the inability to communicate through speech, or in some figural sense, maybe even a political sense, the loss of a common social language or context with(in) which to share information and experiences?

What I find interesting in the popular understanding of evolution is the way in which the most strident defenders of an amoral, non-anthropomorphisized objective understanding of the scientific theory fail to notice that the impulse behind the gravitation toward a "design" model of the universe is an ethical one, that people look to design as an explanatory device not in spite of the evolution's success, but because of it in the sense that the growing power of science gives people a yearning for limits to that power and a sense that it is being guided by concern for legitimate humanitarian purposes; they perceive that science itself is moving into the position long ascribed to divine being(s) -- with the ability to change the structure of the cosmos. change the weather, change the basic particles of human existence, alter the fates of individuals in seemingly whimsical ways -- just like the Olympian potentates of yore -- and they want to feel that there's some recognizably human impulse behind it all. "Evolution," seen as a personified force, may not act or have acted in the past like an ethical being, but they want the new gods in white lab coats to act with ethical concern aforethought as they assume the mantel of arbiter current divinity, altering genes, fixing the climate, etc. and this ethical yearning expresses itself in the ideolgical construct called ID.