As usual you have a good well thought-out post. I think where we differ is on the issue of the reality of evil. For this discussion, I will concede that evolution is capable of bringing about a state of moral awareness, something which I am confident you will concede, is an assumption.
The way I see it, if you are correct, then what we call evil, is nothing more than a perception of our senses. In which case, it by neccessity is entirely subjective and dictated by societial mores. Which in terms of qualifying as an objective-state of moral affairs, is manifest as "morality by decree", by that I mean a moral standard we can all agree on. Murder is morally wrong, to use an extreme example.
I think there is a danger in this philosophy.
I am sure you would agree that pedeophila is morally wrong [evil]. If morality is subjective [and therefore varaiable] there could concievably come a day when the societial norms would allow such behaviour. If you still held to the notion that this behaviour was morally wrong, what manner of reason would you appeal to, given that you have abandoned an objective reference point for judging moral behaviour?
I think that evil is real and this reality is evidence of an absolute moral state of affairs. How could evil exist in the absence of good? If good exists then there must be a source of "goodness", if you will. And as an existential reality, it would not be unamenable to an evolutionary process, that is, it would be immaterial.
Evil is an inescapable personal reality. It is evidence of the corrupt and depraved nature of fallen-man. What is evil, if not man’s personel depravity in action?
This is a sobering thought. Evil, rather than being something external, is something that is a very real part of us all.
What is the difference between you and I and Tim McViegh?
The Grace of God.