Creationists deny all evolution, that's the point and comparing augmentation and automation with that debate is stretching the metaphore
Many of the things that allow augmentation facilitate the move to full automation, but that was not there motive for them being developed. Their purpose is to make driving safer.
Whether it is achievable or even desirable to remove the human from the loop is a different question.
We can look at other examples where more automation has been achieved. Trains have to various levels achieved full automation, but many trains still require a human driver. Most passenger aircraft pretty well fly themselves, but still we have pilots and I would argue not many passengers would get on one unless they new their was wetware at least in token charge.
To achieve full automation in cars you would need a high level of AI to allow decision making to cover unexpected situations.
This I think is the problem. If you make a car with the decision making ability close or above a human driver, it is no longer a car, it is in fact human competitor. As such I think we will find it hard to cross that last step because in doing so we will be accepting we are in fact obsolete, but most will accept a high level of augmentation as long as someone has a hand on the kill switch
* See Asimov I robot books for more reference