I do not see why evolutionary theory should be any more difficult to
reconcile with the Fall than the creation of man directly from dust. As a
description of how God created our physical bodies, it does not provide any
direct insight into moral issues. The only progress that can be
legitimately defined with respect to natural selection is whether one is
able to outcompete the other. From the Bible, it is clear that this is a
poor guideline to moral status. Obviously, athletes are no more likely
than anyone else to be morally commendable. I can say based on biology
that we are better than apes at running but worse at climbing trees.
Whether this is an improvement or not depends on which is more useful in
the situation at hand. Morally, I do not think it makes any difference.
As to the moral difference between us and earlier humans, Mt. 11:20-24
suggests that we ought to be improving but are getting worse. Although one
can point to certain aspects of culture in which morality shows an
increase, I do not think anyone can support the claim that humanity is
improving as a whole in this regard, except possibly in correlation with
the spread of the gospel.
Although many people try to claim that biological evolution supports
ideologies that claim that humanity is progressing (or would be progressing
if they followed the ideology), the definition of progress is imposed from
outside biology. Also, these usually deviate from the goal of increasing
your genes in future generations. Marxism, for example, asks me to put the
good of the proletariat above my personal goal of promoting my own genes
(assuming I am trying to be as evolutionarily successful as possible).
Eugenics in all its forms (Social Darwinism, Nazism, abortion because of
genetic features, etc.) invent some ideal form for humans that often
suspiciously resembles the founder but has no guarentee of matching my
genes.
David C.