No, evolution's only conception of "wrong" is failure to produce reproducible offspring. It's an adaptation to cease spending metabolic energy maintaining a useless sensory mechanism, because that's an improvement in the creature's energy efficiency. If you move to another country and learn the language, forgetting your own in the process, that is an adaptation because you're better suited to your current environment. It's just an adaptation that had a cost, like every other adaptation. I guess you can set up your definitions differently, arbitrarily defining what counts as a "capability" or not (it's about as difficult as defining what a "species" is, to be honest - sounds simple, but corner cases will fuck your shit up), but don't expect people to agree with you.
There are vestigial organs and such, and for that matter much (if not most) of your DNA is vestigial, but that's because those are cases where the pressure against retaining those things hasn't been sufficient to get rid of them, and genetic drift, bottlenecks, and suchlike are all things, and they screw with simple ideas about what's evolutionarily optimal. Don't even get me started on bird plumage (sexual selection can get pretty out of control). Given what I know about how the eyes work, I have absolutely no trouble believing that there's a significantly higher pressure against maintaining eyesight than there is against having eyes in the first place, to continue with this horribly off-topic example.
However, all that said, we should really get off this topic - Idiocracy was a comedy and people who take it seriously don't understand the difference between comedy science and real science, but technically, yes, to say it got nothing right is obviously false as evidenced by the number of people restrained by the force of gravity and suchlike. I shouldn't even really have made this post, it's just a discussion about evolution is happening and my will is weak >______>